How should we revise the paratactic theory?

Frankish, Keith (1996). How should we revise the paratactic theory? Analysis, 56(4) pp. 251–263.

Full text available as:

Preview

PDF (Accepted Manuscript) - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader Download (131Kb)

DOI (Digital Object Identifier) Link:	http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0003-2638.1996.00251.x
Google Scholar:	Look up in Google Scholar

Abstract

This paper takes another look at Davidson's paratactic theory of indirect discourse and evaluates some revisions to it, proposed recently by Ian Rumfitt (Mind, 1993). Davidson's original version of the theory – according to which indirect speech reports refer to token utterances – has a problem dealing with ambiguity. Rumfitt suggests that we can solve this problem by supposing that the immediate objects of verbs in indirect speech are token representations of disambiguated LF tree-structures. I argue that this proposal is inadequate and suggest that it is better to think of indirect speech as relating speakers to utterance types.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Copyright Holders:	1996 The Author
ISSN:	1467-8284
Keywords:	indirect speech
Academic Unit/Department:	Arts > Philosophy
Item ID:	117
Depositing User:	Users 12 not found.
Date Deposited:	14 Nov 2006
Last Modified:	27 Mar 2014 15:15
URI:	http://oro.open.ac.uk/id/eprint/117
Share this page:

Altmetrics	Scopus Citations

Actions (login may be required)

	View Item
RDF+XMLBibTeXRDF+N-TriplesJSONDublin CoreAtomOAI-ORE Resource Map (Atom Format)Simple MetadataReferMETSOAI-ORE Resource Map (RDF Format)HTML CitationASCII CitationMultiline CSVRefMan RIS Format (UTF-8)OpenURL ContextObjectEndNoteMODSOpenURL ContextObject in SpanMPEG-21 DIDLEP3 XMLRefMan RIS FormatRDF+N3Eprints Application Profile	Report issue / request change