The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Why fuss about these quirks of the vernacular? Propositional attitude sentences in Prior’s nachlass

Why fuss about these quirks of the vernacular? Propositional attitude sentences in Prior’s nachlass
Why fuss about these quirks of the vernacular? Propositional attitude sentences in Prior’s nachlass
In English, in order to speak about Arthur’s attitudes, we use sentences like “Arthur believes that natural language is messy”. For sentences of this kind we have a standard theory, according to which the ‘that’-clause ‘that natural language is messy’ denotes a proposition. As Prior showed for the first time, the standard theory appears to be at odds with some linguistic data. Geach and Prior both assumed that linguistic data are to be taken as reliable guides to a correct semantic account and I will start by raising some worries concerning their methodology. Because of these data, Prior and Geach suggested some non-standard accounts. I will then show that if we take linguistic data seriously, their non-standard accounts do not fare any better than the standard theory. My general conclusion will thus not only be that Prior’s and Geach’s methodology is disputable, but also that their conclusions do not seem to follow even if we grant the reliability of their methodology.
0039-7857
3521–3534
Felappi, Giulia
9c0bc4c5-5547-434e-8bbd-0c785bece1bc
Felappi, Giulia
9c0bc4c5-5547-434e-8bbd-0c785bece1bc

Felappi, Giulia (2015) Why fuss about these quirks of the vernacular? Propositional attitude sentences in Prior’s nachlass. Synthese, 193 (11), 3521–3534. (doi:10.1007/s11229-015-0903-1).

Record type: Article

Abstract

In English, in order to speak about Arthur’s attitudes, we use sentences like “Arthur believes that natural language is messy”. For sentences of this kind we have a standard theory, according to which the ‘that’-clause ‘that natural language is messy’ denotes a proposition. As Prior showed for the first time, the standard theory appears to be at odds with some linguistic data. Geach and Prior both assumed that linguistic data are to be taken as reliable guides to a correct semantic account and I will start by raising some worries concerning their methodology. Because of these data, Prior and Geach suggested some non-standard accounts. I will then show that if we take linguistic data seriously, their non-standard accounts do not fare any better than the standard theory. My general conclusion will thus not only be that Prior’s and Geach’s methodology is disputable, but also that their conclusions do not seem to follow even if we grant the reliability of their methodology.

Text
Whu fuss
Restricted to Registered users only
Download (217kB)
Request a copy

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 9 September 2015
e-pub ahead of print date: 19 September 2015
Published date: 1 November 2015
Organisations: Philosophy

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 396936
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/396936
ISSN: 0039-7857
PURE UUID: ffbe11a4-4048-477a-b9fa-2a228775f8a5
ORCID for Giulia Felappi: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-0110-6371

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 17 Jun 2016 08:17
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 03:53

Export record

Altmetrics

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×