The Temperature Paradox and Meaning Postulates

Linguistic Inquiry 47:695-705 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX


Lasersohn has argued that the use of Russell's analysis of the definite determiner in Montague Grammar, which is responsible for giving the correct prediction in the case of the Temperature Paradox, is also responsible for giving the wrong prediction in the case of the Gupta Syllogism. In this paper I argue against Lasersohn, and show that the problem of the Gupta Syllogism can be solved by making a minor addition to Intensional Montague Grammar. This solution is one that Lasersohn discusses but rejects. I will show that his critique of it is ill-founded.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,873

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Compositionality and Model-Theoretic Interpretation.Hendriks Herman - 2001 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10 (1):29-48.
How to find an attractive solution to the liar paradox.Mark Pinder - 2018 - Philosophical Studies 175 (7):1661-1680.
Two new challenges for the modal account of the progressive.Douglas J. Wulf - 2009 - Natural Language Semantics 17 (3):205-218.


Added to PP

14 (#1,014,919)

6 months
4 (#854,689)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Casper Storm Hansen
Institute of Philosophy, Chinese Academy of Sciences

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references