Donkey philosophy. Evidence and Explanation in Theorizing about Semantics (original) (raw)
The paper deals with the problem of truth-conditions of the so called donkey sentences (existential versus universal reading). It starts with a new interpretation of results obtained by Bart Geurts in his Donkey Business. This interpretation says that the results may be explained by considering only the existential reading. Further on, new experiments are presented, devised with the aim to gather more data about universal reading and to identify more potential motivations for particular answers of the informants. The results strengthen the initial presumption that donkey sentences do not have strictly established truth-conditions for multiple donkeys situations and that correct truth-conditions for these sentences might be-and should be-stipulated by some semantic theory based upon certain general principles. Universal reading and existential reading of these sentences are explanations rather than evidence. Consequently, donkey sentences should not be taken for a test for semantic theories. This fact, strengthened by an array of similar observations from other areas of linguistics conveyed by Carson Schütze, can be generalized to suggest that the theory of language-even the most empirical part of it-still leaves much space for philosophical interpretation. Omnis homo habens asinum videt illum
Sign up for access to the world's latest research.
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.