Search results for 'demonstratives' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. Specificational Pseudoclefts, Barbara Abbott & Donkey Demonstratives (2002). Roger Schwarzschild and Karina Wilkinson. Natural Language Semantics 10 (305).score: 20.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Brian Rabern (2013). Monsters in Kaplan's Logic of Demonstratives. Philosophical Studies 164 (2):393-404.score: 18.0
    Kaplan (1989a) insists that natural languages do not contain displacing devices that operate on character—such displacing devices are called monsters. This thesis has recently faced various empirical challenges (e.g., Schlenker 2003; Anand and Nevins 2004). In this note, the thesis is challenged on grounds of a more theoretical nature. It is argued that the standard compositional semantics of variable binding employs monstrous operations. As a dramatic first example, Kaplan’s formal language, the Logic of Demonstratives, is shown to contain monsters. (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Friederike Moltmann (2013). Tropes, Bare Demonstratives, and Apparent Statements of Identity. Noûs 47 (2):346-370.score: 18.0
    Philosophers who accept tropes generally agree that tropes act as the objects of reference of nominalizations of adjectives, such as 'Socrates’ wisdom' or 'the beauty of the landscape'. This paper argues that tropes play a further important role in the semantics of natural language, namely in the semantics of bare demonstratives like 'this' and 'that' in what in linguistics is called identificational sentences.
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Paul Elbourne (2008). Demonstratives as Individual Concepts. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (4):409-466.score: 18.0
    Using a version of situation semantics, this article argues that bare and complex demonstratives are interpreted as individual concepts.
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. David Braun (2008). Complex Demonstratives and Their Singular Contents. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (1):57-99.score: 18.0
    This paper presents a semantic and pragmatic theory of complex demonstratives. According to this theory, the semantic content of a complex demonstrative, in a context, is simply an object, and the semantic content of a sentence that contains a complex demonstrative, in a context, is a singular proposition. This theory is defended from various objections to direct reference theories of complex demonstratives, including King's objection from quantification into complex demonstratives.
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Ernest Lepore & Kirk Ludwig (2000). The Semantics and Pragmatics of Complex Demonstratives. Mind 109 (434):199-240.score: 18.0
    Complex demonstratives, expressions of the form 'That F', 'These Fs', etc., have traditionally been taken to be referring terms. Yet they exhibit many of the features of quantified noun phrases. This has led some philosophers to suggest that demonstrative determiners are a special kind of quantifier, which can be paraphrased using a context sensitive definite description. Both these views contain elements of the truth, though each is mistaken. We advance a novel account of the semantic form of complex (...) that shows how to reconcile the view that they function like quantified noun phrases with the view that simple demonstratives function as context sensitive referring terms wherever they occur. If we are right, previous accounts of complex demonstratives have misconceived their semantic role; and philosophers relying on the majority view in employing complex demonstratives in analysis have proceeded on a false assumption. (shrink)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Derek Henry Brown (2009). Indirect Perceptual Realism and Demonstratives. Philosophical Studies 145 (3):377 - 394.score: 18.0
    I defend indirect perceptual realism against two recent and related charges to it offered by A. D. Smith and P. Snowdon, both stemming from demonstrative reference involving indirect perception. The needed aspects of the theory of demonstratives are not terribly new, but their connection to these objections has not been discussed. The groundwork for my solution emerges from considering normal cases of indirect perception (e.g., seeing something depicted on a television) and examining the role this indirectness plays in demonstrative (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. David Braun (2008). Problems for a Quantificational Theory of Complex Demonstratives. Philosophical Studies 140 (3):335 - 358.score: 18.0
    This paper presents a number of objections to Jeffrey King's quantificational theory of complex demonstratives. Some of these objections have to do with modality, whereas others concern attitude ascriptions. Various possible replies are considered. The debate between quantificational theorists and direct reference theorists over complex demonstratives is compared with recent debates concerning definite descriptions.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Stefano Predelli (2012). Bare-Boned Demonstratives. Journal of Philosophical Logic 41 (3):547-562.score: 18.0
    This essay proposes a novel semantic account of demonstratives, aimed at clarifying the sense in which demonstratives are semantically dependent on demonstrations. Its first two sections summarize the main views currently on the market. Section 3 argues that they are all vitiated by the same shortcomings, and yield incorrect results of ‘truth in virtue of character’ and entailment. Section 4 proposes a different account of the relationships between demonstratives and demonstrations, grounded on the idea of truth-conditionally irrelevant (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Jeffrey C. King (2008). Complex Demonstratives as Quantifiers: Objections and Replies. Philosophical Studies 141 (2):209 - 242.score: 18.0
    In “Complex Demonstratives: A Quantificational Account” (MIT Press 2001) (henceforth CD), I argued that complex demonstratives are quantifiers. Many philosophers had held that demonstratives, both simple and complex, are referring terms. Since the publication of CD various objections to the account of complex demonstratives I defended in it have been raised. In the present work, I lay out these objections and respond to them.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Imogen Smith (2008). False Names, Demonstratives and the Refutation of Linguistic Naturalism in Plato's "Cratylus" 427 D1-431c3. Phronesis 53 (2):125 - 151.score: 18.0
    This paper offers an interpretation of Plato's Cratylus 427d1-431c3 that supports a reading of the dialogue as a whole as concluding in favour of a conventionalist account of naming. While many previous interpretations note the value of this passage as evidence for Platonic investigations of false propositions, this paper argues that its demonstration that there can be false (or incorrect) naming in turn refutes the naturalist account of naming; that is, it shows that a natural relation between name and nominatum (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. J. P. Smit (2012). Why Bare Demonstratives Need Not Semantically Refer. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 42 (1):43-66.score: 18.0
    I-theories of bare demonstratives take the semantic referent of a demonstrative to be determined by an inner state of the utterer. E-theories take the referent to be determined by factors external to the utterer. I argue that, on the Standard view of communication, neither of these theories can be right. Firstly, both are committed to the existence of conventions with superfluous content. Secondly, any claim to the effect that a speaker employs the conventions associated with these theories cannot have (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. David Braun (2008). Persisting Problems for a Quantificational Theory of Complex Demonstratives. Philosophical Studies 141 (3):243 - 262.score: 18.0
    This paper presents a number of objections to Jeffrey King's quantificational theory of complex demonstratives. Some of these objections have to do with modality, whereas others concern attitude ascriptions. Various possible replies are considered. The debate between quantificational theorists and direct reference theorists over complex demonstratives is compared with recent debates concerning definite descriptions.
    No categories
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Adam Morton (1999). The Presidential Address: Where Demonstratives Meet Vagueness: Possible Languages. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 99:1 - 18.score: 18.0
    I present three invented languages, in order to support a claim that vagueness and demonstrativity are related. One of them handles vagueness like English handles demonstratives, the second handles demonstratives like English handles vagueness, and the third combines the resources of the first two. The argument depends on the claim that all three can be learned and used by anyone who can speak English.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Christopher Gauker (forthcoming). How Many Bare Demonstratives Are There in English? Linguistics and Philosophy.score: 18.0
    In order to capture our intuitions about the logical consistency of sentences and the logical validity of arguments, a semantics for a natural language has to allow for the fact that different occurrences of a single bare demonstrative, such as “this”, may refer to different objects. But it is not obvious how to formulate a semantic theory in order to achieve this result. This paper first criticizes several proposals: that we should formulate our semantics as a semantics for tokens, not (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Daniel Altshuler (2007). WCO, ACD and What They Reveal About Complex Demonstratives. Natural Language Semantics 15 (3):265-277.score: 18.0
    This squib presents a rebuttal to two of King’s (Complex demonstratives: A quantificational account. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001) arguments that complex demonstratives are quantifier phrases like every man. The first is in response to King’s argument that because complex demonstratives induce weak crossover effects, they are quantifier phrases. I argue that unlike quantifier phrases and like other definite determiner phrases, complex demonstratives in object position can corefer with singular pronouns contained in the subject DP. Although (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Imogen Smith (2008). False Names, Demonstratives and the Refutation of Linguistic Naturalism in Plato's Cratylus 427d1-431c3. Phronesis 53 (2):125-151.score: 18.0
    This paper offers an interpretation of Plato's Cratylus 427d1-431c3 that supports a reading of the dialogue as a whole as concluding in favour of a conventionalist account of naming. While many previous interpretations note the value of this passage as evidence for Platonic investigations of false propositions, this paper argues that its demonstration that there can be false (or incorrect) naming in turn refutes the naturalist account of naming; that is, it shows that a natural relation between name and nominatum (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Carlo Penco (2013). Indexicals as Demonstratives: On the Debate Between Kripke and Künne. Grazer Philosophische Studien 88.score: 15.0
    This paper is a comparison of Kripke’s and Künne’s interpretations of Frege’s theory of indexicals, especially concerning Frege’s remarks on time as “part of the expression of thought”. I analyze the most contrasting features of Kripke’s and Künne’s interpretations of Frege’s remarks on indexicals. Subsequently, I try to identify a common ground between Kripke’s and Künne’s interpretations, and hint at a possible convergence between those two views, stressing the importance given by Frege to nonverbal signs in defining the content of (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Greg Jarrett (1996). Analyzing Mental Demonstratives. Philosophical Studies 84 (1):49-62.score: 15.0
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Eric Russert Kraemer (1985). Beliefs, Dispositions and Demonstratives. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 63 (June):167-176.score: 15.0
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Craige Roberts (2002). Demonstratives as Definites. In K. van Deemter & R. Kibble (eds.), Information Sharing: Reference and Presupposition in Language Generation and Interpretation. CSLI Press. 89-196.score: 15.0
  22. Geoff Georgi (2012). Reference and Ambiguity in Complex Demonstratives. In William P. Kabasenche, Michael O'Rourke & Matthew H. Slater (eds.), Reference and Referring. MIT Press. 357-384.score: 15.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Mohan Matthen (2012). Visual Demonstratives. In Athanasios Raftopoulos & Peter Machamer (eds.), Perception, Realism, and The Problem of Reference. Cambridge University Press.score: 12.0
    When I act on something, three kinds of idea (or representation) come into play. First, I have a non-visual representation of my goals. Second, I have a visual description of the kind of thing that I must act upon in order to satisfy my goals. Finally, I have an egocentric position locator that enables my body to interact with the object. It is argued here that these ideas are distinct. It is also argued that the egocentric position locator functions in (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Lynsey Wolter (2009). Demonstratives in Philosophy and Linguistics. Philosophy Compass 4 (3):451-468.score: 12.0
    Demonstrative noun phrases (e.g., that guy , this ) are of interest to philosophers of language and semanticists because they are sensitive to demonstrations or speaker intentions. The interpretation of a demonstrative therefore sheds light on the role of the context in natural language semantics. This survey reviews two types of approaches to demonstratives: Kaplan's direct reference treatment of demonstratives and other indexicals, and recent challenges to Kaplan's approach that focus on less obviously context-sensitive uses of demonstratives. (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Richard Heck (2002). Do Demonstratives Have Senses? Philosophers' Imprint 2 (2):1-33.score: 12.0
    Frege held that referring expressions in general, and demonstratives and indexicals in particular, contribute more than just their reference to what is expressed by utterances of sentences containing them. Heck first attempts to get clear about what the essence of the Fregean view is, arguing that it rests upon a certain conception of linguistic communication that is ultimately indefensible. On the other hand, however, he argues that understanding a demonstrative (or indexical) utterance requires one to think of the object (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Susanna Siegel (2002). The Role of Perception in Demonstrative Reference. Philosophers' Imprint 2 (1):1-21.score: 12.0
    Siegel defends "Limited Intentionism", a theory of what secures the semantic reference of uses of bare demonstratives ("this", "that" and their plurals). According to Limited Intentionism, demonstrative reference is fixed by perceptually anchored intentions on the part of the speaker.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. David Braun (1996). Demonstratives and Their Linguistic Meanings. Noûs 30 (2):145-173.score: 12.0
    In this paper, I present a new semantics for demonstratives. Now some may think that David Kaplan (1989a,b) has already given a more than satisfactory semantics for demonstratives, and that there is no need for a new one. But I argue below that Kaplan's theory fails to describe the linguistic meanings of 'that' and other true demonstratives. My argument for this conclusion has nothing to do with cognitive value, belief sentences, or other such contentious matters in semantics (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Lynsey Wolter (2010). Teaching & Learning Guide For: Demonstratives in Philosophy and Linguistics. Philosophy Compass 5 (1):108-111.score: 12.0
    Demonstrative noun phrases (e.g. this; that guy over there ) are intimately connected to the context of use in that their reference is determined by demonstrations and/or the speaker's intentions. The semantics of demonstratives therefore has important implications not only for theories of reference, but for questions about how information from the context interacts with formal semantics. First treated by Kaplan as directly referential , demonstratives have recently been analyzed as quantifiers by King, and the choice between these (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Jeffrey C. King (2008). Complex Demonstratives, QI Uses, and Direct Reference. Philosophical Review 117 (1):99-117.score: 12.0
    result from combining the determiners `this' or `that' with syntactically simple or complex common noun phrases such as `woman' or `woman who is taking her skis off'. Thus, `this woman', and `that woman who is taking her skis off' are complex demonstratives. There are also plural complex demonstratives such as `these skis' and `those snowboarders smoking by the gondola'. My book Complex Demonstratives: A Quantificational Account argues against what I call the direct reference account of complex (...) (henceforth DRCD) and defends a quantificational account of complex demonstratives. In two recent papers, Nathan Salmon has criticized one of the book's arguments against DRCD. In this essay I show that Salmon's criticism fails. I also show that the version of DRCD that Salmon ends up endorsing is false. (shrink)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Emma Borg (2000). Complex Demonstratives. Philosophical Studies 97 (2):229-249.score: 12.0
    Some demonstrative expressions, those we might term ‘bare demonstratives’, appear without any appended descriptive content (e.g. occurrences of ‘this’ or ‘that’ simpliciter). However, it seems that the majority of demonstrative occurrences do not follow this model. ‘Complex demonstratives’ is the collective term I shall use for phrases formed by adjoining one or more common nouns to a demonstrative expression (e.g. ‘that cat’, ‘this happy man’) and I will call the combination of predicates immediately concatenated with the demonstrative in (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Eric Swanson, Pronouns and Complex Demonstratives.score: 12.0
    Until recently it was standard to think that all demonstratives are directly referential. This assumption has played important roles in work on perception, reference, mental content, and the nature of propositions. But Jeff King claims that demonstratives with a nominal complement (like ‘that dog’) are quantifiers, largely because there are cases in which the semantic value of such a “complex demonstrative” is not simply an object (2001). Although I agree with King that such cases preclude a directly referential, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Emma Borg (2002). Pointing at Jack, Talking About Jill: Understanding Deferred Uses of Demonstratives and Pronouns. Mind and Language 17 (5):489–512.score: 12.0
    The aim of this paper is to explore the proper content of a formal semantic theory in two respects: first, clarifying which uses of expressions a formal theory should seek to accommodate, and, second, how much information the theory should contain. I explore these two questions with respect to occurrences of demonstratives and pronouns – the so- called ‘deferred’ uses – which are often classified as non-standard or figurative. I argue that, contrary to initial impressions, they must be treated (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Ernest Lepore (2002). Does Syntax Reveal Semantics?: A Case Study of Complex Demonstratives. Philosophical Perspectives 16:17--41.score: 12.0
    Following Aristotle (who himself was following Parmenides), philosophers have appealed to the distributional reflexes of expressions in determining their semantic status, and ultimately, the nature of the extra-linguistic world. This methodology has been practiced throughout the history of philosophy; it was clarified and made popular by the likes of Zeno Vendler and J.L. Austin, and is realized today in the toolbox of linguistically minded philosophers. Studying the syntax of natural language was fueled by the belief that there is a conceptually (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Kirk Ludwig (2000). The Semantics and Pragmatics of Complex Demonstratives. Mind 109 (434):199 - 240.score: 12.0
    Complex demonstratives, expressions of the form "That F, "These Fs", etc., have traditionally been taken to be referring terms. Yet they exhibit many of the features of quantified noun phrases. This has led some philosophers to suggest that demonstrative determiners are a special kind of quantifier, which can be paraphrased using a context sensitive definite description. Both these views contain elements of the truth, though each is mistaken. We advance a novel account of the semantic form of complex (...) that shows how to reconcile the view that they function like quantified noun phrases with the view that simple demonstratives function as context sensitive referring terms wherever they occur. If we are right, previous accounts of complex demonstratives have misconceived their semantic role; and philosophers relying on the majority view in employing complex demonstratives in analysis have proceeded on a false assumption. (shrink)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Kent Johnson & Ernie Lepore (2002). Does Syntax Reveal Semantics? A Case Study of Complex Demonstratives. Noûs 36 (s16):17 - 41.score: 12.0
    Following Aristotle (who himself was following Parmenides), philosophers have appealed to the distributional reflexes of expressions in determining their semantic status, and ultimately, the nature of the extra-linguistic world. This methodology has been practiced throughout the history of philosophy; it was clarified and made popular by the likes of Zeno Vendler and J.L. Austin, and is realized today in the toolbox of linguistically minded philosophers. Studying the syntax of natural language was fueled by the belief that there is a conceptually (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Adam Morton (1999). Where Demonstratives Meet Vagueness: Possible Languages. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 99 (1):1–18.score: 12.0
    I argue that both demonstratives and vague predicates are instances of some more general linguistic phenomena, which could take quite different forms. My argument consists in constructing three natural-like langauges, and using their intelligibility to argue for conclusions about languages such as English.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Paul Elbourne, Seminar in Semantics: Complex Demonstratives.score: 12.0
    This seminar will investigate the semantics of complex demonstratives, that is phrases like that dog with a blue collar and this table where this or that is followed by an NP. There has been much debate recently on the overall semantic shape of these items, with some theorists (e.g. Braun) claiming that they are directly referential in the sense of Kaplan, some (e.g. King) claiming that they are quantificational, some (e.g. Roberts) claiming that they are to be treated as (...)
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Richard Vallée (2005). Complex Demonstratives, Articulation, and Overarticulation. Dialogue 44 (1):97-121.score: 12.0
    Complex demonstratives raise problems in semantics and force a re-examination of basic principles underlying the New Theory of Reference. First, I present these problems and the relevant principles. Then, I explore the most common suggestions, for instance, as those put forward by Braun and Dever. Finally, I introduce my own view. The latter is a non-ad hoc extension of the Reflexive-Referential analysis of context-sensitive terms as discussed by Perry. It accounts for familiar problems, including those raised by the fact (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Mika Oksanen, Doxastic Logic of Demonstratives; Indexical and Reflexive Pronouns in Ascriptions of Propositional Attitudes.score: 12.0
    In this article I will develop the first steps of a wholly general theory of how indexical and reflexive pronouns function in propositional attitude ascriptions. This will involve a theory of ascriptions of de se beliefs and de se utterances, which can probably be also generalized so as to apply to ascriptions of other attitudes. It will also involve a theory about the ascriptions of beliefs or other attitudes a person has at a time about what happens then (attitudes de (...)
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. H. Zeevat (1999). Demonstratives in Discourse. Journal of Semantics 16 (4):279-313.score: 12.0
    There are two influential theories that deal with the role of the context in determining the meaning of sentences: Kaplan's logic of demonstratives and Kamp's discourse representation theory. How Kaplan would deal with the donkey sentences must remain a matter of speculation, but there is an obvious and reasonable answer to the question of how demonstratives should be handled within discourse representation theory. The latter question is addressed in the first part of this paper. The account proposed here (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Eros Corazza (2003). Demonstratives Qua Singular Terms. Erkenntnis 59:263-283.score: 12.0
    In a recent book, Jeffrey King argues that complex demonstratives, i.e., noun phrases of the form 'this/that _F', are not singular terms. As such, they are not devices of direct reference contributing the referent to the proposition expressed. In this essay I challenge King's position and show how a direct reference view can handle the data he proposes in favor of the quantificational account. I argue that when a complex demonstrative cannot be interpreted as a singular term, it is (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Henk Zeevat, Demonstratives on Pictures.score: 12.0
    Kaplan's theory of demonstratives and deicticals can be brie y stated as follows. Expressions of this kind depend for their interpretation on the context of utterance and in a context of utterance they refer directly to whatever they refer to. Direct reference in turn consists in two properties. The rst property is the absence of a Fregean sense. The context does its work once and for all and the reference is not in uenced by a counterfactual circumstance in which (...)
    No categories
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. David Kaplan (1990). Thoughts on Demonstratives. In Palle Yourgrau (ed.), Demonstratives. Oxford University Press. 34--49.score: 12.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Christopher Mole (2013). Embodied Demonstratives: A Reply to Wu. Mind 122 (485):231-239.score: 10.0
    Although Wayne Wu correctly identifies a flaw in the way in which my 2009 article frames the debate about ‘zombie action’, he fails in his attempts to strengthen the case for thinking that our actions are under less conscious control than we usually imagine. His argument, like the arguments that my earlier paper addressed, can be blocked by allowing that an embodied demonstrative concept can contribute contents to a visual experience.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Christopher Mole (2009). Illusions, Demonstratives and the Zombie Action Hypothesis. Mind 118 (472):995-1011.score: 10.0
    David Milner and Melvyn Goodale, and the many psychologists and philosophers who have been influenced by their work, claim that ‘the visual system that gives us our visual experience of the world is not the same system that guides our movements in the world’. The arguments that have been offered for this surprising claim place considerable weight on two sources of evidence — visual form agnosia and the reaching behaviour of normal subjects when picking up objects that induce visual illusions. (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Michael Glanzberg & Susanna Siegel (2006). Presupposition and Policing in Complex Demonstratives. Noûs 40 (1):1–42.score: 10.0
    In this paper, we offer a theory of the role of the nominal in complex demonstrative expressions, such as 'this dog' or 'that glove with a hole in it'.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Barbara Partee, A Note on Mandarin Possessives, Demonstratives, and Definiteness.score: 10.0
    Yang (2004) observes that in Mandarin, an initial possessor phrase (PossessorP) may be followed by a bare noun as in (1), or by a possessee phrase that can be headed by a numeral and classifier, [Numeral + CL + N], as in (2) or by a demonstrative, [Dem + (Numeral) + CL + N] as in (3). (In all the examples in this section, we begin with Yang’s own initial glosses and translations3. The interpretation of the examples will be probed (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Barbara Abbott (2002). Donkey Demonstratives. Natural Language Semantics 10 (4):285-298.score: 10.0
    Donkey pronouns (e.g., it in Every farmer who owns a donkey beats it) are argued to have an interpretation more similar to a demonstrative phrase (e.g., . . . beats that donkey) than to any of the other alternatives generally considered (e.g., . . . the donkey(s) he owns, . . . a donkey he owns). Like the demonstrative phrase, the pronoun is not equivalent to Evans' E-type paraphrase, nor to either the weak or the strong reading sometimes claimed for (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Daphna Heller & Lynsey Wolter (2013). Beyond Demonstratives: Direct Reference in Perceptually Grounded Descriptions. Journal of Semantics:fft012.score: 10.0
    This article discusses two puzzles regarding identity questions: (i) certain definites cannot occur in the post-copular position of identity questions; and (ii) the same definites are the only possible answers to identity questions with post-copular names. We demonstrate that the range of these definites crucially depends on interlocutors' shared assumptions about how entities in the physical surroundings are perceived and categorized. We propose that these definites are directly referential in the sense of Kaplan (1989a,b), and only contribute the referent itself (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. David Kaplan (1979). On the Logic of Demonstratives. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1):81 - 98.score: 9.0
1 — 50 / 1000