Precis of Conjoining Meanings

Let me start by thanking Professors Santorio and Szabo for their insightful comments careful readings of Conjoining Meanings (CM). They highlight the main theses describe project in helpful ways.1 So instead multiplying summaries, let say a little about what motivated project. Chomsky was influential. But teaching truth-theoretic semantics, many years, really convinced need different conception linguistic meaning. Fido barked. chased Felix. Names like ‘Fido’ ‘Felix’ are said to be entity denoters basic semantic type , declarative sentences truth-value another . The idea is that denote ordinary entities, perhaps certain dog cat, while truth or falsity.2 tensed verb (1) then described as an expression—of non-basic —that denotes function maps each falsity depending on whether not phrase ‘chased Felix’ expression same type, corresponding Felix; ‘chased’ t>>—that dyadic entity, x, x', x' x. Every quantificational ‘every dog’ gets instance <, t> second-order first-order function, F', F' every truth. Then ‘every’ t>> F, thing F such also truth.3 From here on, things get less pretty. cat. barked loudly today. Felix heard bark. Dogs cats. broke vase, so vase broke. mouse, mouse Hubbard gave bone. As twists unfold, value appealing Function Application becomes clear, part because hierarchy types—, , <α, β> if <α> <β> types—seems needlessly vast powerful. Moreover, picture composition begins emerge, at least one squints bit; given this picture, developed CM, adopt hypothesis (1-11) have conditions. At which point, it seems unreasonable keep setting aside arguments against hypothesis. In book, I try spell out detail. Here, just indicate motivating line thought. One can maintain (4), cat’ treating ‘Fido chased’ device mapping only it. combines with analog relative clause ‘which chased’, treated formed abstracting ‘which’ from direct object position ‘chased’; see, e.g., Heim Kratzer (1998). This highlights question, discussed why cat cannot understood sentence true even there good answer, meanings (4) determined solely Application. way another, neo-Fregean accounts clauses objects invoke (syncategorematic) rule permits conversion open into predicate t>. Not there's anything wrong that. posit analogous CM. review reasons positing conjunctive phrases combining nouns verbs modifiers, ‘grey (which/that) ‘dog today’. It has become common existential closures predicates, suggested Davidson (1967b) others. invoked these days. we ask should all, event analyses. ‘barked’ often modified favor saying intransitive semantically corresponds event, barking case, yields events values. other functions, those ‘loudly’ ‘today’. plausible condition (5), closure needed. bark’ appears ‘heard’ (6), means roughly barking. covert triggered untensed clause, without yielding truth-evaluable sentence; see Higginbotham (1983). There noun (7), Kamp (1981) (1982). indefinite article ‘a’ plausibly English grammatical marker singular count noun, opposed quantifier needs combine ‘cat’ chased’. Discussions causative passive constructions, (9) (10), play large role relevant literature constructions invite cluster related questions. Why does first conjunct imply second? (10) other? And subject transitive associated being agent experiencer patient theme? If triadic λx.λx'.λe.BreakByOf(e, x), no Slangs “thematically inverted” λx.λx'.λe.BreakOfBy(e, x)? Slangs, adding overt morpheme verbs. Studies phenomenon revitalized old ‘Felix break vase’ includes two verbal elements combined; Baker (1988) incorporation. On view, atomic 'break' takes single argument breaking, positions akin light ‘make’ ‘make baby smile’. parts conjoinable predicates ‘∃x[AgentOf(e, x) & Felix(x)]’ ‘TerminatesIn(e, f) ∃x[BreakOf(f, Vase(x)]’. (9), unsurprising prepositional (10). indirect (11) ‘Hubbard bone Fido’, especially Larson's (1988, 2014) discussion ditransitive constructions. Given evidence ideas right track, semanticists consider possibility Slang lexical items dyadic, polyadicity unattested—or rare—because operative compositional principles phrasal syntax geared monadic relationality introduced via immediately (whose existentially closed) form conjoined CM explores both formal cognitive perspectives. technical front, show how typologically spare meaning handle standard textbook more, appeal homework exercise doesn't proposal correct. advocates more familiar views equally having game town. Fregean typology considered prejudice. suspect when people talk impressive theories are, they thinking framework were initially offered (1-3)—while forgetting downplaying ways creaks, under pressure later—and considering alternative models composition. specific various ways. between twixts Taken together, considerations questions appeals needed wanted Slangs—and not, assumption (1-12) my replies Szabo, I'll focus general skepticism attempts characterize terms characterizing truth, restricted range thoughts naturally available members our species, will require polyadic notions. (Modern logic is, reason, deeply relational.) sense, natural interwoven internalist instructions assemble concepts limited sort.5 Davidsonians, who eschew Application, may feel unfairly left far. empirical issues—concerning human cognition Slangs—remain largely denoting (potentially polyadic) functions replaced satisfied sequences entities. few exceptions (e.g., Larson Segal 1995), details tend look Lewis (1970) Montague (1974) than (1967a) Tarski (1944). That said, end introduction opinionated reminder field's history. Current descend Lewis, whose proposals emerged environment “Semantic Quineanism”: extensionalism odd mix—prevalent Harvard 1960s—of externalism, kind nominalism, residual behaviorism morphed instrumentalism psychology, admiration combined fondness eliminativism regard meanings, tendency treat regimentation description. Theories born revision.