See also:
Profile: Emanuel Viebahn (Humboldt-University, Berlin)
  1.  22
    Emanuel Viebahn & Barbara Vetter (2016). How Many Meanings for ‘May’? The Case for Modal Polysemy. Philosophers' Imprint 16 (10).
    The standard Kratzerian analysis of modal auxiliaries, such as ‘may’ and ‘can’, takes them to be univocal and context-sensitive. Our first aim is to argue for an alternative view, on which such expressions are polysemous. Our second aim is to thereby shed light on the distinction between semantic context-sensitivity and polysemy. To achieve these aims, we examine the mechanisms of polysemy and context-sensitivity and provide criteria with which they can be held apart. We apply the criteria to modal auxiliaries and (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  62
    Emanuel Viebahn (2013). Counting Stages. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 91 (2):311-324.
    This paper defends stage theory against the argument from diachronic counting. It argues that stage theorists can appeal to quantifier domain restriction in order to accommodate intuitions about diachronic counting sentences. Two approaches involving domain restriction are discussed. According to the first, domains of counting are usually restricted to stages at the time of utterance. This approach explains intuitions in many cases, but is theoretically costly and delivers wrong counts if diachronic counting is combined with fission or fusion. On the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  3. Emanuel Viebahn (2014). Against Context-Sensitivity Tests. Grazer Philosophische Studien 88:189-209.
    The aim of this paper is to show that tests for semantic context-sensitivity are of no help in the debate between semantic contextualists and minimalists. Two kinds of context-sensitivity tests are discussed: Cappelen & Lepore's says-that tests and Cappelen & Hawthorne's agreement-based tests. It is shown that Cappelen & Lepore's tests are unreliable because they are based on unstable data. Then it is argued that although the data of Cappelen & Hawthorne's tests is more reliable, contextualists and minimalists alike can (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography