A new addition to Graeme Forbes’ list of “preprints”:http://www.tulane.edu/~forbes/preprints.html — related to the paper “mentioned”:http://fintel.mit.edu/blog/archives/000070.html here in February:
bq. Depiction Verbs: The Languages of Art Semantics (Draft 3, May 2003)
bq. This paper is a “reading” version of “Verbs of Creation and Depiction”:http://www.Tulane.EDU/~forbes/pdf_files/CDVerbs.pdf prepared for the Society for Exact Philosophy and Logica 2003. Detailed discussion of the semantics of the progressive and some of the longer footnotes have been excised. There are only minor differences between this draft and the previous one.
The abstract for the previous version reads as follows:
bq. This paper is descended from one written for a symposium on the work of Terence Parsons (Notre Dame University, 7th to 8th February 2003). Creation verbs (’build’, ‘construct’, ‘assemble’ etc.) and depiction verbs (’sketch’, ‘draw’, ’sculpt’, ‘imagine’ etc.) have certain affinities, and my solution to the unfinished-object problem for creation verbs in the progressive has consequences for the the semantics I propose for notional readings of depiction-verb phrases. The paper ends with a theory about why depiction verbs betray a definiteness effect in DP syntactic complements (”Verrocchio painted two/many/no angels” have notional readings, “Verrocchio painted the two/most/all angels” don’t).
Home > About This Post
This entry was posted by fintel on Thursday, May 8th, 2003, at 9:17 am.
Subscribe to the
RSS 2.0 feed for all comments to this post.
Post a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.