Simple Sentences , Substitutions , and

Many competent speakers initially judge that (i) is true and (ii) is false, though they know that (iii) is true. (i) Superman leaps more tall buildings than Clark Kent. (ii) Superman leaps more tall buildings than Superman. (iii) Superman is identical with Clark Kent. Semantic explanations of these intuitions say that (i) and (ii) really can differ in truthvalue. Pragmatic explanations deny this, and say that the intuitions are due to misleading implicatures. This paper argues that both explanations are incorrect. (i) and (ii) cannot differ in truth-value, yet the intuitions are not due to implicatures, but rather to mistakes in evaluating (i) and (ii). 1. The Puzzle We’ll begin with some intuitions. First, (1) seems true, while (1*) does not. (1) Superman leaps more tall buildings than Clark Kent. (1*) Superman leaps more tall buildings than Superman. Next, a situation in which (2) is true could, seemingly, be one in which (2*) is false. (2) Clark Kent went into a phone booth, and Superman came out. (2*) Clark Kent went into a phone booth, and Clark Kent came out.