ISSN 1811-833Х (Print)
ISSN 2311-7133 (Online)
This comment on E.Borisov’s text deals with some technical complications that his proposed analysis faces, according to the author’s opinion. The author argues that Borisov’s definition of the operator O is not clear and his theory might predict non-existent readings unless the definition is stated clearly. The author criticizes Borisov’s proposal for not being compositional and outlines an alternative analysis in terms of the contemporary semantic treatments of comparative constructions and attitude reports.
Bonomi A. Transparency and specificity in intensional contexts. In: P. Leonardi, M. Santambrogio (eds.). In: On Quine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995, pp.164–185.
Fodor J.D. The linguistic description of opaque contexts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. 1970. 370p. [http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/theses/fodor70.pdf , accessed 28.08.2016]
Heim I. Degree operators and scope. In: Semantics and linguistic theory, 2000, vol. 10, pp. 40-64.
Kennedy Ch. Projecting the Adjective: The Syntax and Semantics of Gradability and Comparison. PhD dissertation. University of California, Santa Cruz, 1997. [http://semantics.uchicago.edu/kennedy/docs/ck-thesis.pdf, accessed 31.08.2016]
Keshet E. Good Intensions: Paving Two Roads to a Theory of the De re/De dicto Distinction. Ph.D. dissertation. Cambridge: MIT Press. 165p. [https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/45622/320472279-MIT.pdf, accessed 31.08.2016]
Schwarzschild R. The semantics of comparatives and other degree construction. In: Language and Linguistics Compass, 2008, no.2, pp.308-331