We are very grateful to Felipe Amaral, Michael Devitt, Marcel den Dikken, Robert Fiengo, Daniel Finer, Pauline Jacobson, Stephen Neale, Gary Ostertag, David Rosenthal, Susan Schweitzer, the CUNY Cognitive Science Group, and two anonymous reviewers at Mind & Language for their comments on previous versions of this paper.
Syntax and Interpretation
Article first published online: 15 MAR 2011
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Mind & Language
Volume 26, Issue 2, pages 185–209, April 2011
How to Cite
PUPA, F. and TROSETH, E. (2011), Syntax and Interpretation. Mind & Language, 26: 185–209. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2011.01415.x
- Issue published online: 15 MAR 2011
- Article first published online: 15 MAR 2011
In his book Language in Context, Jason Stanley provides a novel solution to certain interpretational puzzles (Stanley, 2007). The aphonic approach, as we call it, hangs upon a substantial syntactic thesis. Here, we provide theoretical and empirical arguments against this particular syntactic thesis. Moreover, we demonstrate that the interpretational puzzles under question admit of a better solution under the explicit approach.