Replies and discussion on Strawson' substitute for scope

Linguistics and Philosophy 2 (2):291-304 (1978)
Strawson has recently developed a style of semantic subject-predicate analysis which, applied to certain sentences, rivals a standard account that turns on the notion of scope. His account depends on three notions: (i) complex, derivative properties, (ii) predicate-negation, and (iii) substantiation—an alleged semantic function having particular-specification as a special case. As I further develop it, the suspicion energes that his account simply is the scope account in disguise. I show that it is rather an untenable rival, placing the blame on his notion (iii), vindicating his notion (i) and finding his notion (ii) theoretically needless.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF00350260
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,719
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Parasitic Scope.Chris Barker - 2007 - Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (4):407-444.
Strawson on 'If' and ⊃.Gunnar Björnsson - 2008 - South African Journal of Philosophy 27 (3):24-35.
P. F. Strawson on Predication.Danny Frederick - 2011 - Polish Journal of Philosophy 5 (1):39-57.
On Strawson' Substitute for Scope.E. Patton Thomas - 1978 - Linguistics and Philosophy 2 (2):291 - 304.
Added to PP index

Total downloads
20 ( #255,759 of 2,197,266 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #298,963 of 2,197,266 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature