Syntax and Interpretation

Pupa, Francesco; Troseth, Erika

doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2011.01415.x

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this paper I focused on a weaker interpretation of the argument according to which the postulation of variables for locations in the logical form of meteorological sentences such as "It is raining" is the best available explanation of binding phenomena such sentences give rise to. Such an interpretation, it seems to me, is compatible with criticisms like those put forward by Cappelen and Lepore (2002) or by Pupa and Troseth (2011) that best apply to the other, stronger interpretations of the argument.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 66%

“…This is a claim about the connection between semantic binding (which is what the intuitive bound readings put forward by the proponents of the Binding Argument are supposed to illustrate) and syntactic binding (which is a highly constrained, well regimented syntactic phenomenon).7 Many authors have denied premise 3 or similar claims (e.g., Carston 2002;Breheny 2003;Neale 2007;Collins 2007 -as well as most proponents of the answers to the Binding Argument that will be presented in the next section). Here, however, I will focus on one of the more recent and most substantial denials in the literature, the one found in Pupa and Troseth (2011). They object to what they call "coincidence": the claim that there is a perfect overlap between semantic binding and syntactic binding.8 Stressing the point that the proponents of the Binding Argument incur a very heavy theoretical burden of a syntactic nature, they show that there are clear cases in which there is semantic binding without there being syntactic binding, for reasons having to do with the impossibility of moving for certain expressions or with lack of suitable expressions that should be c-commanded.9 Now, Pupa and Troseth's criticism has focused on the case of domain restriction, but the same criticism might apply to the case of meteorological sentences as well.…”

Section: Three Interpretations Of the Binding Argumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The use of the Binding Argument in the debate about location

Zeman¹

2017

Meaning, Context and Methodology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper I inquire into the methodological status of one of the arguments that have figured prominently in contemporary debates about the semantics of a variety of expressions, the so-called "Binding Argument". My inquiry is limited to the case of meteorological sentences like "It is raining", but my conclusion can be extended to other types of sentences as well. Following Jason Stanley, I distinguish between three interpretations of the argument. My focus is on the third, weakest interpretation, according to which postulating variables for locations in the logical form of meteorological sentences is the best available explanation of the binding phenomena that such sentences give rise to. My aim is to show that even in this weak interpretation, the argument cannot be reasonably taken to hold. I accomplish this by showcasing several alternative ways to account for the binding data that have not been, as of yet, ruled out as flawed. 2 This interpretation of the Binding Argument has been offered by one of the proponents of the argument, Stanley (2007, chapter 1). Other authors dealing with the argument take it to have such an interpretation (see, for example, Sennet (2008: 143)). Regarding the Binding Argument itself, its origin can be traced back to Chomsky (1957).

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 66%

Section: Three Interpretations Of the Binding Argumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of the Binding Argument in the debate about location

Zeman¹

2017

Meaning, Context and Methodology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…30 Though, I'm quite happy to acknowledge that the syntactic proposal and it's free enrichment rivals leave much to be desired. For problems with the former, see Blair (2005), Collins (2007), Neale (2007), Ostertag (2008), and Pupa and Troseth (2011). For problems with the latter, consult Cappelen and Lepore (2005), Martí (2006), Stanley (2007), and Sennet (2011).…”

Section: Most Parentsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Since these obscurities do not touch our current concerns, I will, for exposition's sake, remain silent on them. For discussion, see Pupa and Troseth (2011). 13 If the null restrictor were to provide a property, the syntactic approach would run afoul of the no conjoinment limitation.…”

Section: Companies In Manhattanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impossible interpretations, impossible demands

Pupa

2015

Linguist and Philos

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While there has been much ado about the innumerable ways a speaker can alter the reach of her quantifier phrases, little fuss has been made over the fact that some forms of alteration are, as it were, impossible to pull off. These impossible interpretations cast a shadow over both syntactic and free enrichment approaches to the phenomenon of quantifier domain restriction. Indeed, I argue that these impossible interpretations help to undermine the presupposition that domain restriction is amenable to a uniform theoretical account.

show abstract

“…For a discussion of the methodological aspect of those arguments, see Zeman (forthcoming). For a thorough discussion of the argument from binding in connection not to meteorological verbs, but to quantifier domain restriction, see Pupa and Troseth (2011).…”

Section: The Variadic Functions Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relativism and Bound Predicates of Personal Taste: An Answer to Schaffer's Argument from Binding

Zeman

2015

Dialectica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper I put forward and substantiate a possible defensive move on behalf of the relativist about predicates of personal taste that can be used to block a recent contextualist argument raised against the view: the 'argument from binding' proposed in Schaffer (2011). The move consists in adopting Recanati's (2002;2004) "variadic functions" apparatus and applying it to predicates of personal taste like 'tasty' and experiencer phrases like 'for John'. I substantiate the account in a basic relativistic framework and reply to several objections to the variadic-functions approach in general and to its application to the expressions at hand.The aim of this paper is to put forward and substantiate a possible defensive move on behalf of the relativist about predicates of personal taste that could be used to block a recent contextualist argument raised against the view -the 'argument from binding' proposed in Jonathan Schaffer's article 'Perspective in Taste Predicates and Epistemic Modals'. This argument has the same form as that used by defenders of truth-conditional semantics against truth-conditional pragmatics about, for example, locations. The argument proceeds as follows: we start from examples of complex sentences that have bound readings, and, by appeal to certain syntactic and semantic assumptions we are drawn to conclude that simple sentences containing the target expressions have a corresponding variable in their logical form 1 that is responsible for the bound reading. The answer I will propose in this paper has the peculiarity that it grants all the syntactic and semantic assumptions the proponent of the argument resorts to, while still offering an escape route for the relativist by employing a certain view about the expressions involved in the argument.I will proceed as follows. In section 1 I will give a brief characterization of predicates of personal taste and then present the data Schaffer relies on, together with various instances of the argument from binding -including the one I claim is implicit in Schaffer's paper. In section 2 I will sketch the solution to Schaffer's . 1 'Logical form' will be understood in this paper as referring to the level of syntactic representation of sentences that is free from ambiguities and constitutes the input to semantics. The logical form of a sentence is (at least partially) determined by the syntactic configuration of the expressions it contains, where 'syntactic configuration' refers to a level of representation that, at minimum, specifies the number of an expression's argument places.

show abstract

Syntax and Interpretation

Cited by 9 publications

References 22 publications

The use of the Binding Argument in the debate about location

The use of the Binding Argument in the debate about location

Impossible interpretations, impossible demands

Relativism and Bound Predicates of Personal Taste: An Answer to Schaffer's Argument from Binding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About