DOCSLIB.ORG

Indefinite Noun Phrases and Referential Opacity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Indefinite Noun Phrases and Referential Opacity 89 Indefinite Noun Phrases and Referential Opacity James T. Heringer Ohio State University In this paper it is argued that the distinction between specific and non-specific indefinite noun phrases first noted by Smith (1964) and discussed by Baker (1966) and Karttunen (1968), among others, actually amounts to a distinction between those noun phrases which carry with them a presupposition of the 'existence', in a sense to be clarified later, of a referent and those noun phrases which do not. The evidence for this comes from the manner in which specific and non-specific noun phrases behave in referentially opaque contexts. There are three major types of superficial indefinite noun phrases which it seems necessary to distinguish. First, there is the generic indefinite, illustrated in sentences (1) and (2). (1) A quagmire is tough to get out of. (2) A goose flies south for the winter. These are general statements about a class of individuals and are usually, but not always, paraphrasable by sentences having definite or plural noun phrases in place of the indefinitel, as shown by sentences (3)-(6). (3) Quagmires are tough to get out of. (4) Geese fly south for the winter. (5) *The quagmire is tough to get out of. (6) The goose flies south for the winter. Contrasting with this is the type of indefinite noun phrase illustrated in sentences (7)-(9). The indefinite noun phrases (7) A four-toed troglodyte just entered the room. (8) A square circle disturbed my dreams last night. (9) A friend of mine eats tapioca pudding with his bare hands. beginning these sentences clearly refer to specific individuals. However, they are able to do this without being a correct or true 90 description of their referents. In line with the semantic distinction drawn by Donellan (1966) between referential and attributive definite descriptions, it may be said that this type of noun phrase, called specific in discussions of syntax, is referential, i.e., used by the speaker to "enable his audience to pick out whom or what he is talking about" rather than to "state something about whoever or whatever is Ca] so-and-so,"2 which is the case with the attributive usage.3 Thus, sentences (7) and (8) are meaningful independent of the existence in the real world of any entity which has four toes per foot and lives in a cave or which is simultaneously round and square, and sentence (9) is meaningful independent of whether the relationship between the speaker of this sentence and the individual referred to would really be called friend- ship. Sentences like (7)-(9) are usually paraphrasable by sentences to which there-insertion has applied and by sentences containing certain in the indefinite noun phrase, as in the next sentences. (10) A certain friend of mine eats tapioca pudding with his bare hands. (11) There's a friend of mine who eats tapioca pudding with his bare hands. The third type of indefinite noun phrase, the non-specific or attributive variety, cannot be paraphrased with the corres- ponding sentence containing certain, nor does it necessarily have a referent. This type of noun phrase denoted a single individual chosen arbitrarily from the class of individuals described by the noun phrase, as in sentences (12)-(16). (12) John wanted to catch a fish. (13) Henry tried to locate a winged horse. (14) Max is a doctor. (15) I didn't find an osteopath. (16) Did you hit a pig in the snout? These sentences are paraphrasable by pseudo-cleft sentences, independent of whether the class of individuals described is human or not, a fact recently noted by Kuno (to appear), N.B. the last three sentences of the next group. (17) What John wanted to catch was a fish. (18) What Henry tried to locate was a winged horse. (19) What Max is is a doctor. (20) What I didn't find was an osteopath. (21) Was what you hit in the snout a pig? While the object noun phrase in (16) is ambiguously specific or not (as in the case in (12), (13) and (15), at least for some 91 speakers of English), the corresponding noun phrase in (21) is unambiguously non-specific, although still possibly human. The preceding is by way of introduction and is meant to be indicative of what has been said previously about the specific/ non-specific distinction in indefinite noun phrases. Next we examine the interaction of this distinction with the phenomenon of referential opacity. Philosophers have long noted the curious semantic behavior of noun phrases in the complements of certain verbs, such as want, think, claim when the subject of these verbs is not to,be identified with the speaker of the sentence containing them.' It has been pointed out that in a sentence like (22) there is an ambiguity as to whether the responsibility for the description (22) John wants to marry a witch. la witch' is to be assigned to John or to the speaker of the sentence. Further, it is not always possible to substitute equivalent terms for la witch' in (22), preserving meaning. Finally, the assertion of (22) does not entail that witches exist. This situation is contrasted with that in sentences like (23). (23) John married a witch. (24) All witches are hunchbacked. (25) John married a hunchback. (26) John wants to marry a hunchback. Here it is supposed that (1) the speaker must take responsibility for the description 'a witch; (2) given the concurrent assertion of (24), (25) follows (while (26) under the same circumstances • would not follow from (22)); (3) it follows from the assertion of (23) that witches exist. All contexts in which equivalent terms lack substitutivity and there is no existential generalization possible are called opaque contexts. The type of opaque context which was just illustrated and which is at issue in this paper is the type involving ambiguity concerning who is referring. This type is called a referentially opaque context. The reading of ambiguous sentences like (22) in which the speaker is responsible for the description is called the transparent reading; that in which the subject is responsible is called the opaque reading. It is only in the opaque reading that substitutivity and existential generalization are ruled out. As an illustration of the preceding, consider the sample argument given in (27). The statement of the conclusion, (2709 (27) (a) Oedipus wanted to marry Jocasta. (b) Jocasta was Oedipus' mother. (c) A0edipus wanted to marry his mother. is given by a sentence ambiguous in the manner just described. The important thing to notice here is that the argument is valid 92 only if thd sentence of the conclusion is given the transparent reading, that is, if 'his mother' is the speaker's description of Jocasta. If referential opacity is examined in the light of the specific/non-specific distinction, or rather the referential/ attributive distinction, since we are treading on philosophical ground, it becomes evident that referential opacity is not as monolithic a concept as it has been made to appear in most philosophical literature concerning itself with opacity, the content of which the sketchy description given above is meant to reflect. First, consider attributive indefinites in referentially opaque contexts. As Patton (1968) has noticed, attributive noun phrases in referentially opaque contexts can only be construed opaquely, and thus must be considered the responsi- bility of the subject of the sentence. Actually, this needs further qualification, as the following examples show. First, consider the argument given in (28). As opposed to the situa- (28) (a) John claims to be a bachelor. (b) All bachelors are profligates. (c) «John claims to be a profligate. tion with the argument in (27), there is no sense in which (28) is valid, given that 'a bachelor' and 'a profligate' are attributive and that 'bachelor' has its 'normal' meaning here. However (29) does constitute a valid argument. (29) (a) John claims to be a bachelor. (b) All bachelors are unmarried. (c) .John claims to be (an) unmarried (person). Moreover, it is not only the assertions associated with the noun phrase in the object complement which may be substituted, but also the presuppositions associated with the noun phrase in question,2 as shown by the valid inferences in (30) and (31). (30) John claims to be an assassin. «John claims to be a killer. (31) John wants (expects) to be a dictator. .John wants (expects) to be a ruler. The generalization to be drawn from this seems to be that an attributive noun phrase in an opaque context cannot be supplied by the speaker of the sentence if the description it gives is not at least presupposed in the subjects' belief world by the description the subject originally gave, or, more precisely, if the speaker does not assume that such a connection exists in the belief world of the subject. Thus if the speaker substitutes 'a profligate' for la bachelor' in a context like (28c), he is 93 presupposing that the term 'bachelor' carrys with it a pre- supposition of profligacy for the subject of the sentence and, perhaps, for everyone. The oddness of (28c) is evidence that such a presupposition would generally be considered false and apparently demonstrates a second-level presupposition failure,, i.e., failure of a presupposition that a presupposition holds.' Turning to the interpretation of referential indefinites in opaque contexts, it is apparent that the situation with respect to substitivity is entirely different than what was found to be the case with attributive indefinites, for the substitute may denote a class of individuals entirely disjoint from that denoted by the substituendum while making reference to the same individual as the substituendum.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Linguistic Description of Opaque Contexts Pdf, Epub, Ebook
    THE LINGUISTIC DESCRIPTION OF OPAQUE CONTEXTS PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Janet Dean Fodor | 384 pages | 26 Nov 2015 | Taylor & Francis Ltd | 9781138989535 | English | London, United Kingdom The Linguistic Description of Opaque Contexts PDF Book This also concerns noun phrases embedded under attitude verbs; consider:. A naturalobjectionto ourproposalis thatthe T-sentencewe give for 'Galileo said that the earthmoves' will not enable someone who grasps it alone to under- stand the sentence for which it gives truthconditions. Peter Trudgill offers examples of non-transparent and transparent compounds: "The English word dentist is not semantically transparent whereas the Norwegian word tannlege , literally 'tooth doctor,' is" A Glossary of Sociolinguistics , This cannot mean as if they had asserted them, so we take it that the idea is basically the same as the one we have in mind. See Lepore and Ludwig for a suggestion for an importantmodificationof Davidson's proposal in the context of a general truth-theoreticaltreatmentof tense and temporaladverbs. The above observation about translationhelps on another front. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. This way of drawing attentionto the appropriaterelation is does not commit us to the existence of propo- sitions; rather,it is a useful heuristicgiven the familiarityof puttingit this way. Perhaps the most popular solution to the problem of providing a compositional semantics for naturallanguages aims to exploit this fact by treat- ing that-clausesas referringto intensional entities-entities at least as as finely individuatedas the meanings of sentences.
    [Show full text]
  • Semantics for Opaque Contexts1
    PHIL 9812-6 Philosophical Perspectives, 12, Language, Mind, and Ontology, 1998 SEMANTICS FOR OPAQUE CONTEXTS1 Kirk Ludwig and Greg Ray University of Florida 1. Introduction In this paper, we outline an approach to giving extensional truth-theoretic semantics for what have traditionally been seen as opaque sentential contexts.2 If the approach outlined here is correct, it resolves a longstanding complex of prob- lems in metaphysics, the philosophy of mind and the philosophy of language. We take as our starting point the requirement that any semantics for a natural language be compositional, that is, that it provide an interpretation of each of the infinity of sentences in it on the basis of a finite primitive vocabulary and a finite number of rules. At least since Frege,3 it has been recognized that sentences such as (1), (1) Galileo said that the earth moves, present a prima facie difficulty for the project of providing a compositional se- mantics for natural languages. A compositional semantics for a fragment of En- glish which does not include sentences of indirect discourse, psychological attitude sentences (henceforth ‘attitude sentences’), modal sentences, sentences about entailments, and similar constructions can be given straightforwardly in the form of a first-order interpretive truth theory for the language.4 The approach breaks down when we turn to sentences such as (1), whose truth value is not a function of the truth value of the embedded sentence ‘the earth moves’. In general, one term can be substituted for another in ‘that-clauses’salva veritate only if they are synonymous. Perhaps the most popular solution to the problem of providing a compositional semantics for natural languages aims to exploit this fact by treat- ing that-clauses as referring to intensional entities–entities (at least as) as finely individuated as the meanings of sentences.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Propositional Attitudes
    On the Propositional Attitudes KEITH COLEMAN The University of Kansas An adequate account of the nature of the so called 'propositional attitudes' has long been sought by philosophers of mind, and most theories which have been proposed have suffered from certain logical or epistemological defects or have been limited in scope. The issues centering around the nature of beliefs, desires, and the other attitudes pertain to two principal areas of investigation: the explication of a (psychological) theory concerning the objects of the propositional attitudes and the analysis of the logical structure of such sentences as those with the form 'A believes that p' or 'A wishes (desires) that p.' My main concern in this paper is with problems associated with the latter endeavor. Such problems in an important respect are more basic, for a successful attempt at characterizing the typical form of sentences that express propositional attitudes must be made before any theory about the objects of beliefs, desires, and other intentions can possibly take shape.1 The sentence "Jones believes that there are unicorns" has the typical form of the members of a class of sentences each one consisting of one or more names or denoting phrases followed by an intentional idiom of the kind 'believes that', 'desires that', 'wishes that', 'hopes that', 'fears that', 'says that', 'wonders whether', etc. followed by a complete sentence. Such complex sentences when taken as assertions have usually been seen as expressing a relationship (or a propositional attitude) of one kind or another between an object (usually a person) and a belief, desire, wish, hope, or other intention (or object of the propositional attitude).
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 18: Negative Contexts and Intensional Contexts: Similarities and Differences 1. Introduction to the Puzzle
    The Structure of Meaning, Lecture 18 Barbara H. Partee, May 22, 2006 Lecture 18: Negative Contexts and Intensional Contexts: Similarities and Differences 1. Introduction to the puzzle..........................................................................................................................................1 2. Background. “Scope ambiguity,” NP interpretations, and the semantics of operators.............................................2 3. Natural language patterns – strategies of marking different interpretations differently. ...........................................4 3.1. Some languages mark opaque readings, e.g. Romance languages - subjunctive................................................4 3.2. Negative Polarity Items (NPIs)...........................................................................................................................5 3.3. Russian Genitive of Negation and intensional verbs ..........................................................................................6 4. Hypotheses ................................................................................................................................................................7 4.1 Scope differences.................................................................................................................................................7 4.2 Possible non-uniform NP meanings. .................................................................................................................7 4.3 Property types and other “demotions”
    [Show full text]
  • A Logic for 'Because'
    THE REVIEW OF SYMBOLIC LOGIC Volume 4, Number 3, September 2011 A LOGIC FOR ‘BECAUSE’ BENJAMIN SCHNIEDER University of Hamburg Abstract. In spite of its significance for everyday and philosophical discourse, the explanatory connective ‘because’ has not received much treatment in the philosophy of logic. The present paper develops a logic for ‘because’ based on systematic connections between ‘because’ and the truth- functional connectives. §1. Introduction. 1.1. The project. In the philosophy of logic, the natural language connectives ‘and’, ‘or’, ‘not’, and ‘if . then’ are widely discussed and so are their formal counterparts, such as the truth-functional connectives of classical logic or counterfactual and strict con- ditionals in modal systems. Considerably less attention has been paid to the explanatory connective ‘because’. One simple reason may be that ‘because’ is quite complicated to handle. ‘Because’ is obviously not an extensional operator: the truth of the two clauses in a ‘because’-sentence is compatible both with the truth of the sentence (JFK died because he was shot) and with its falsity (JFK died because Chernobyl exploded). But not only is ‘because’ nonexten- sional, it is even hyperintensional: necessarily equivalent clauses are not substitutable salva veritate in its context. This immediately follows if (i) some true ‘because’-sentences have a main clause expressing a necessary truth, and (ii) not all necessary truths are explained by exactly the same things. For, assume that S expresses a necessary truth (e.g., that {2} contains a prime number), and that there is at least one true instance of S because φ (e.g., ‘{2} contains a prime number because it contains 2 and 2 is prime’).
    [Show full text]
  • The Functional Composition of Sense
    Synthese https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03099-3 The Functional Composition of Sense Bryan Pickel1 Received: 10 June 2020 / Accepted: 22 February 2021 © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract A central dispute in understanding Frege’s philosophy concerns how the sense of a complex expression relates to the senses of its component expressions. According to one reading, the sense of a complex expression is a whole built from the senses of the component expressions. On this interpretation, Frege is an early proponent of structured propositions. A rival reading says that senses compose by functional application: the sense of a complex expression is the value of the function denoted by its functional component for the arguments denoted by its remaining components. I argue that two non-negotiable Fregean theses entail that senses compose by functional application. One thesis is that referents compose by functional application. The other thesis is that an expression in an indirect context refers to its customary sense. Keywords Frege · Semantics · Sense · Reference · Structured propositions 1 Introduction Two aspects of Frege’s mature semantic theory have each been heralded as central advances in the development of a rigorous semantics. One aspect—introduced in Function and Concept—is that reference is not merely compositional, but functionally compositional. According to Frege, each expression has a Bedeutung, or referent. Some expressions refer to functions. Others expressions refer to arguments for these functions. A complex expression refers to the value of the function referred to by one This paper improved significantly as a result of advice and feedback from Fiona Doherty, Philip Ebert, Bjørn Jesperen, Lorraine Juliano Keller, Casey McCoy, Joey Pollack, Brian Rabern, Alex Radelescu, Stephen Read, David Rey, Wolfgang Schwarz, Alex Yates, and two referees for Synthese.
    [Show full text]
  • Williamson Traces the History of the Problem from Discussions of the Heap Paradox in Ancient Greece to Modern Formal Approaches, Such As Fuzzy Logic
    Vagueness If you keep removing single grains of sand from aheap,when is it no longer a heap? This question, and many others like it, soon lead us to the problem of vagueness. Timothy Williamson traces the history of the problem from discussions of the heap paradox in ancient Greece to modern formal approaches, such as fuzzy logic. He discusses the view that classical logic and formal semantics do not apply to vague languages and shows that none of the alternative approaches can give a satisfying account of vagueness without falling back on classical logic. Against this historical and critical background, Williamson then develops his own epistemicist position. Vagueness, he argues, is an epistemic phenomenon, a kind of ignorance: there really is a specific grain of sand whose removal turns the heap into a non-heap, but we cannot know which one it is. Williamson’s argument has ramifications far beyond the study of vagueness. It reasserts the validity of classical logic and semantics; more generally, it makes the thoroughly realist point that even the truth about the boundaries of our concepts can be beyond our capacity to know it. The approach throughout keeps technicalities to a minimum; this is partly to counter the illusion, encouraged by the emphasis on formal systems, that vagueness can be studied in a precise metalanguage. For the technically minded, an appendix shows how the epistemic view can be formalised within the framework of epistemic logic. Timothy Williamson is Professor of Logic and Metaphysics at the University of Edinburgh. He is the author of Identity and Discrimination.
    [Show full text]
  • D-SCRIPT: a COMPUTATIONAL THEORY of DESCRIPTIONS Artificial Intelligence
    Session 8 Formalisms for D-SCRIPT: A COMPUTATIONAL THEORY OF DESCRIPTIONS Artificial Intelligence Robert C. Moore Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts Abstract 1.2 Problems In Representing Knowledge This paper describes D-SCRIPT, a language for representing knowledge in artificial Before presenting the details of D- Intelligence programs. D-SCRIPT contains a SCRIPT, we will try to give some Idea of the powerful formalism for descriptions, which type of problem It Is designed to solve. A permits the representation of statements that classic problem Is that of representing opaque are problematical for other systems. contexts. An opaque context is one which does Particular attention is paid to problems of not allow substitution of referentially opaque contexts, time contexts, and knowledge equivalent expressions or does not allow about knowledge. The design of a deductive existential quantification. For example the system for this language is also considered. verb "want" creates an opaque context: 1. Int roduction (1.1) John wants to marry the prettiest girl. 1.1 Ways of Representing; Knowledge This sentence is ambiguous. it can mean either: Methods advocated for representing knowledge in artificiall intelligence programs (1.2) John wants to merry a specific girl who have Included logical statements (McCarthy, also happens to bp the prettiest. Sandewall), semantic networks (Quillian, Schank), and procedures (Hewitt, Sussman and or: McDermott), All these approaches shpre one fundamental concept, the notion of (1.3) John wants to marry whoever is the predication. That Is, the basic data prettiest girl, although he may not know structure In each system Is some who that is.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantifier Scope, Lexical Semantics, and Surface Structure Constituency
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons IRCS Technical Reports Series Institute for Research in Cognitive Science December 1996 Quantifier Scope, Lexical Semantics, and Surface Structure Constituency Jong Cheol Park University of Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/ircs_reports Park, Jong Cheol, "Quantifier Scope, Lexical Semantics, and Surface Structure Constituency" (1996). IRCS Technical Reports Series. 106. https://repository.upenn.edu/ircs_reports/106 University of Pennsylvania Institute for Research in Cognitive Science Technical Report No. IRCS-96-28. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/ircs_reports/106 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Quantifier Scope, Lexical Semantics, and Surface Structure Constituency Abstract We present a novel conjecture concerning the scope ambiguities that arise in sentences including multiple nonreferential quantifiers. eW claim that many existing theories of the phenomenon fail to correctly limit the set of readings that such sentences engender by failing to distinguish between referential and non-referential quantifiers. Once the distinction is correctly drawn, we show that surface syntax can be made, via an extended notion of surface constituency, to identify the set of available differently-scoped readings for such sentences. We examine various English constructions to show that the scopings predicted by the conjecture are the only ones that are available to human language understanders. We show how to incorporate this conjecture into a theory of quantifier scope, yb couching it in a unification-based Combinatory Categorial Grammar framework and implementing it in SICStus Prolog. Finally, we compare the proposal with related approaches to quantifier scope ambiguity. Comments University of Pennsylvania Institute for Research in Cognitive Science Technical Report No.
    [Show full text]
  • The Representational Foundations of Computation
    The Representational Foundations of Computation Michael Rescorla Abstract: Turing computation over a non-linguistic domain presupposes a notation for the domain. Accordingly, computability theory studies notations for various non-linguistic domains. It illuminates how different ways of representing a domain support different finite mechanical procedures over that domain. Formal definitions and theorems yield a principled classification of notations based upon their computational properties. To understand computability theory, we must recognize that representation is a key target of mathematical inquiry. We must also recognize that computability theory is an intensional enterprise: it studies entities as represented in certain ways, rather than entities detached from any means of representing them. 1. A COMPUTATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON REPRESENTATION Intuitively speaking, a function is computable when there exists a finite mechanical procedure that calculates the function’s output for each input. In the 1930s, logicians proposed rigorous mathematical formalisms for studying computable functions. The most famous formalism is the Turing machine: an abstract mathematical model of an idealized computing device with unlimited time and storage capacity. The Turing machine and other computational formalisms gave birth to computability theory: the mathematical study of computability. 2 A Turing machine operates over strings of symbols drawn from a finite alphabet. These strings comprise a formal language. In some cases, we want to study computation over the formal language itself. For example, Hilbert’s Entscheidungsproblem requests a uniform mechanical procedure that determines whether a given formula of first-order logic is valid. Items drawn from a formal language are linguistic types, whose tokens we can inscribe, concatenate, and manipulate [Parsons, 2008, pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Semantics for Opaque Contexts Author(S): Kirk Ludwig and Greg Ray Source: Noûs, Vol
    Semantics for Opaque Contexts Author(s): Kirk Ludwig and Greg Ray Source: Noûs, Vol. 32, Supplement: Philosophical Perspectives, 12, Language, Mind, and Ontology (1998), pp. 141-166 Published by: Wiley Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2676144 . Accessed: 19/11/2014 12:40 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Noûs. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 150.209.80.79 on Wed, 19 Nov 2014 12:40:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PhilosophicalPerspectives, 12, Language,Mind, and Ontology,1998 SEMANTICS FOR OPAQUE CONTEXTS Kirk Ludwig and Greg Ray University of Florida 1. Introduction In this paper, we outline an approachto giving extensional truth-theoretic semanticsfor what have traditionallybeen seen as opaque sententialcontexts.2 If the approachoutlined here is correct,it resolves a longstandingcomplex of prob- lems in metaphysics, the philosophy of mind and the philosophy of language. We take as our startingpoint the requirementthat any semantics for a natural language be compositional, that is, that it provide an interpretationof each of the infinity of sentences in it on the basis of a finite primitive vocabularyand a finite numberof rules.
    [Show full text]
  • The Semantics of Gradation
    MANFRED BIERWISCH The Semantics of Gradation 1 Introduction The term 'gradation' is meant to cover a range of phenomena which for the time being I shall call quantitative evaluations regarding dimensions or features. I shall actually be looking into the principles governing the way gradation is expressed in language. The quantitative aspect of the adjectives of dimension occupies a key position which can be systematically explained and this aspect will be the crucial point of the discussion. I shall focus on the various grammatical forms of comparison: comparative, equative, superlative and some related constructions, and indications of measurement and adverbial indications of degree. A substantial number of the relevant facts have been researched in a series of analyses and theoretical proposals on the semantics of comparison." There are two main reasons why the present essay, while building on the insights gained 50 far, attempts to formulate a new theory concerning the same facts. Firstly, there remain many relevant and revealing facts that have not been taken into account in previous analyses and could in fact not be incorporated without radical changes.' " Secondly, while the facts dealt with so far have been systematically analysed and explicitly described, they have not been traced back to the general conditions and principles underlying the interactions of the phenomena observed; A fresh approach also seems called for if we are to bring together system­ atically the explanations and insights provided by existing analyses, because of their sometimes widely differing orientation regarding (a) the way they treat the central facts, (b) their aims in doing 50 and (c) the methods they use.
    [Show full text]