Definindo Um Operador-Monstro

Abstract

• ABSTRACT: This article reviews the literature on a particular kind of operator present in natural language s, i.e., "monster operator". This operator can shift the context of evaluation of indexicals in its scope. Its existence was initially denied by , but later authors such as Schlenker (2003) and Anand (2006) argue that such operators do exist in natural languages. However, throughout the literature, we see different definitions of that operator. In this paper, after we introduce the concept of monster operator and defend its existence based on data from Brazilian Portuguese (BrP), we argue in favor of a definition that is wider, similar to that first one proposed by . Data from the BrP will be crucial to defending our position.• KEYWORDS: Semantics. Indexicals. Monsters operators. Context shifting. IntroductionDavid Kaplan's semantic theory of indexicals (linguistic items that encompass the so-called "deictics") is certainly one of the most influential theories of indexicals in Linguistics and in Philosophy. His theory explains, in a comprehensive and elegant way, terms whose treatment by formal systems seemed impossible. Additionally, explains a lot of other phenomena within the same theoretical framework.Despite the success of his theory, it is not free of criticism, which focuses on the explanations given by it, its scope, its architecture, and some of its central postulates. In this paper, our objective is precisely to investigate one of the main criticisms of Kaplan's model -his thesis prohibiting the existence of a specific operator in natural languages , which he calls "monster"1 . In his 1989 text, Kaplan argues that there is no such an operator in natural language, but it is possible to build this type of beast in formal language. In the following decades, via studies of poorly understood languages and more careful analysis of languages already described, several authors have criticized Kaplan's statement, claiming that, in fact, there are monsters operators in natural language. However, in doing so, the great majority of researchers altered the definition of monster operator offered by Kaplan. In this paper, we argue that (i) there are monsters operators in natural language, and (ii) the best definition for this type of operator is still the one offered by Kaplan and not the most recently found nowadays in the literature. The reasons will be exhibited throughout this text.To achieve our goal, this paper is organized as follows: initially, we present the general outlines of the Kaplan's theory and his thesis against monsters operators in natural language ; then, according to the data of Schlenker (1999), Anand (2006), Predelli (2008, Basso and Teixeira (2011) and Teixeira and Basso (2013), we argue for the existence of monster operators in natural language ; in the later section, we compare different concepts of monsters operators advocating the one offered by Kaplan, mainly because it is more comprehensive; finally, in the conclusion, we resume the theses presented and the points defended. Kapla...

Benzer é preciso, por meio da Geografia que cura

“…Leonardo Aparecido de Lima Silva; Serli Aparecida Lima da Simone Aparecida Seleznev Geographia Opportuno Tempore, Londrina, v.8, n. 2, p. 105-120, 2022 110 esses saberes, sendo considerados mágicos, curandeiros e feiticeiros(TEIXEIRA, 1994, MIGUEL & MIGUEL, 1999.Ainda,Thomé (2011), apresenta determinados remédios caseiros e plantas medicinais que a população cabocla apelava em suas enfermidades, utilizando os recursos de que dispunham na natureza que os cercava no sertão catarinense. Um saber-fazer próprio, que foi herdado principalmente dos costumes populares dos indígenas, dos monges, dos tropeiros, dos europeus e dos africanos formadores da civilização cabocla (FRAGA, 2017b, 2017c e 2010).Ainda, no tocante a população cabocla do Contestado, havia uma relação de religiosidademonge/plantas medicinais, o monge era respeitado por eles como grande curador.…”