Linguistics and Philosophy 29 (6):715 - 761 (2006)
|Abstract||The paper is about the interpretation of opaque verbs like “seek”, “owe”, and “resemble” which allow for unspecific readings of their (indefinite) objects. It is shown that the following two observations create a problem for semantic analysis: (a) The opaque position is upward monotone: “John seeks a unicorn” implies “John seeks an animal”, given that “unicorn” is more specific than “animal”. (b) Indefinite objects of opaque verbs allow for higher-order, or “underspecific”, readings: “Jones is looking for something Smith is looking for” can express that there is something unspecific that both Jones and Smith are looking for. Given (a) and (b), it would seem that the following inference is hard to escape, if the premisses are construed unspecifically and the conclusion is taken on its under- specific reading: Jones is looking for a sweater. Smith is looking for a pen. Smith is looking for something Jones is looking for.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Makoto Kanazawa (1994). Weak Vs. Strong Readings of Donkey Sentences and Monotonicity Inference in a Dynamic Setting. Linguistics and Philosophy 17 (2):109 - 158.
Nicholas Denyer (1999). Names, Verbs and Quantification Again. Philosophy 74 (3):439-440.
Greg Hill (2006). Rousseau's Theory of Human Association: Transparent and Opaque Communities. Palgrave Macmillan.
Georgette Ioup (1977). Specificity and the Interpretation of Quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (2):233 - 245.
Thomas Ede Zimmermann (1993). On the Proper Treatment of Opacity in Certain Verbs. Natural Language Semantics 2 (1):149-179.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads12 ( #93,386 of 549,093 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?