The third reading: a cluster analysis

Publication Type:

Language:

Transliteration of original Title: 
Tret'e prochtenie: klasternyy analiz
Author(s): 
Alexey Cherniak
People's Friendship University of Russia
Issue number: 
No.4 (Vol.50)
Pages: 
102-118
Abstract: 

This issue is dedicated to the analysis of sentences which purpose is to describe someone's psychological attitudes in terms of a corresponding but different attitudes of agents of describing reports, and which understanding produces so called "scope paradox". Normally any sentence which describes someone's attitude with propositional content has two readings: according to one of them the expression of how an agent of the report view the described attitude is placed outside of the scope of an attitude operator; according to another it is placed within that scope. But sometimes intuition says that neither reading would properly represent what is being said in the report. In order to solve the problem which such cases seem to generate the idea of a third reading was proposed. But perhaps we still don't need third reading in order to express proper understanding of such difficult cases; in what follows it will be shown for the sake of this hypotheses that if the sentences in question are analyzed as clusters of reports all we need are two standard readings.

Keywords: 
meaning, truth conditions, propositional attitude, semantics, logical analysis, third reading, scope paradox, cluster
References: 

Bonomi A. Transparency and specificity in intensional contexts. In: Leonardi P., Santambrogio M. (eds.). On Quine. Cambridge University Press, 1995, pp 164–185.

Cresswell M. Entities and indices. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1990. 274 p.

Donnellan K. Reference and Definite Descriptions.  In: Philosophical Review, 1966, no. 77, pp. 281-304.

Fodor J. D. The linguistic description of opaque contexts. Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation, 1970. 384 p.

Frege G. Begriffsschrift, a formula language, modelled upon that of arithmetic, for pure thought. In: Heijenoort, J. van (ed.). From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879-1931. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967, pp. 1–82.

Frege G. On Sense and Meaning.  In: The Philosophical Review, 1948, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 209-230.

Hintikka J. Semantics for propositional attitudes. In: Davis J.W., Hockney D.J., Wilson, W.K. (eds.). In: Philosophical logic. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1969, pp. 21–45.

Kamp H. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In: Groenendijk, J. A. G., Janssen, T. M. V., Stokhof, M. B. J. (eds.). Formal methods in the study of language. Mathematical Centre Tracts 135, Amsterdam, 1981, pp. 277–322.

Kamp H. Formal properties of now. Theoria, 1971, no.37, pp. 227–273.

Kamp H., Reyle U. From discourse to logic. Introduction to model-theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1993. 713 p.

Kusliy P. S. Problema tretjego prochtenija v semantike soobschenij o verovanijax [Problem of the third reading in the semantics of propositional attitude reports]. In: Kusliy P.S. (ed.). Filosofija jazyka i formal'naja semantika [Philosophy of language and formal semantics]. Moscow: Alfa-M, 2013, pp.129-160. (In Russian)

Lewis D. General Semantics. In: Davidson D., Harman G. (eds). Semantics of natural languages. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1972, pp. 169–218.

Meier E. Proper Names and indexicals trigger rigid presuppositions.  In: Journal of semantics, 2009, no. 26, pp. 253–315.

Montague R. English as a formal language. In: Thomason R.H. (ed.). Formal philosophy. Selected papers of Richard Montague. New Heaven, CT, and London: Yale University Press, 1974, pp. 188–221.

Percus O. Constraints on some other variables in syntax.  In: Natural language semantics, 2000,  vol. 3, no.8, pp. 173–229.

Prior A. Now.  In: Noûs, 1968, no.2, pp.191–207.

Von Fintel K., Heim I. Intensional Semantics. Cambridge, MA:MIT University Press, 2011. 133 p.

DOI: 
10.5840/eps201650473