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) | Preview

DOI (Digital Object Identifier) Link:	http://dx.doi.org/doi: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:	Article
Copyright Holders:	1996 The Author
ISSN:	0003-2638
Extra Information:	The definitive version is available at www.blackwell-synergy.com
Keywords:	indirect speech;
Academic Unit/Department:	Arts > Philosophy
Item ID:	117
Depositing User:	Import Script
Date Deposited:	14 Nov 2006
Last Modified:	10 May 2011 16:55
URI:	http://oro.open.ac.uk/id/eprint/117

	Repository Staff Only: edit this item
Public: Report issue/request change

Policies | Disclaimer