Titlebook: Compositionality, Context and Semantic Values; Essays in Honour of Robert J. Stainton,Christopher Viger Book 2009 Springer Science+Busines

Buren

書目名稱Compositionality, Context and Semantic Values影響因子(影響力)




書目名稱Compositionality, Context and Semantic Values影響因子(影響力)學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Compositionality, Context and Semantic Values網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度




書目名稱Compositionality, Context and Semantic Values網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Compositionality, Context and Semantic Values被引頻次




書目名稱Compositionality, Context and Semantic Values被引頻次學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Compositionality, Context and Semantic Values年度引用




書目名稱Compositionality, Context and Semantic Values年度引用學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Compositionality, Context and Semantic Values讀者反饋




書目名稱Compositionality, Context and Semantic Values讀者反饋學(xué)科排名

DALLY

陪審團(tuán)每個(gè)人

Outlines of external development,icational antecedents. This paper modifies some aspects of Davidson’s view in such a way as to permit such phenomena to occur while preserving the underlying idea of ‘parataxis.’ I focus on the case of binding. I sketch some extensions of the proposed modification and discuss some of the more far reaching consequences of modified theory.

躺下殘殺

CAMP

OCTO

Bridging the Paratactic Gapicational antecedents. This paper modifies some aspects of Davidson’s view in such a way as to permit such phenomena to occur while preserving the underlying idea of ‘parataxis.’ I focus on the case of binding. I sketch some extensions of the proposed modification and discuss some of the more far reaching consequences of modified theory.

OCTO

Descriptions, Negation, and Focusr, these factors can generate an illusion of scope. In particular, focus can generate illusions of scope, which may lead us to think sentences display scope ambiguities they do not. These conclusions offer limited support to non-quantificational treatments of definite descriptions.

Prophylaxis

熱心

Outlines of external development,onial communication of knowledge. To capture such a dimension, we ought to replace the notion of ., with that of .. I argue that there are epistemic intuitions, pertaining to speakers’ epistemic responsibilities in producing testimony, that can be used to constrain what counts as the ‘strictly said’ content.

insert

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-57468-9 overt phenomena under study. But this claim, I contend, is false. In actual practice, scientific models will often never capture all of the behavior of the relevant phenomenon, and this feature does not undermine them as such. I maintain that semantic theorizing is just an instance of this more general aspect of scientific methodology.