PDF (Accepted Manuscript)
- Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
|DOI (Digital Object Identifier) Link:||http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0003-2638.1996.00251.x|
|Google Scholar:||Look up in Google Scholar|
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|
|Academic Unit/Department:||Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASS) > History, Religious Studies, Sociology, Social Policy and Criminology
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASS)
|Depositing User:||Users 12 not found.|
|Date Deposited:||14 Nov 2006|
|Last Modified:||04 Oct 2016 09:42|
|Share this page:|
Download history for this item
These details should be considered as only a guide to the number of downloads performed manually. Algorithmic methods have been applied in an attempt to remove automated downloads from the displayed statistics but no guarantee can be made as to the accuracy of the figures.