Comments on: i-within-i? http://semantics-online.org/2008/02/i-within-i-in-nature A weblog on semantics, pragmatics, philosophy of language, and intersections thereof Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:52:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2 By: heacu http://semantics-online.org/2008/02/i-within-i-in-nature#comment-15889 heacu Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:07:46 +0000 http://semantics-online.org/2008/02/i-within-i-in-nature#comment-15889 <p>The de re reading may be plausible, but nonetheless it doesn't seem right. What is bizarre is being an unknown author of your most famous work (completely de dicto), not just being an unknown author of x (completely de re), or being the unknown author of x's most famous work (de re pronoun, de dicto description).</p> <p>Yet, I do think it's correct of ccshan to say that the his of "his most famous work" is anaphoric to the earlier mention of Charles Webb, and not to "unknown author". Note that if there is no prior antecedent, then the phrase doesn't work:</p> <p>??The unknown author of his most famous work was at the party yesterday.</p> <p>Agreeing with ccshan, I would say that the problem here is that there is no antecedent for "his".</p> <p>What about the following alternative?</p> <p>...bizarre fate of being [x=his most famous work, (unknown author of x)]</p> <p>This way, "his most famous work" is still in the scope of bizarre. But, it's not in the scope of unknown. Is that a problem?</p> The de re reading may be plausible, but nonetheless it doesn’t seem right. What is bizarre is being an unknown author of your most famous work (completely de dicto), not just being an unknown author of x (completely de re), or being the unknown author of x’s most famous work (de re pronoun, de dicto description).

Yet, I do think it’s correct of ccshan to say that the his of “his most famous work” is anaphoric to the earlier mention of Charles Webb, and not to “unknown author”. Note that if there is no prior antecedent, then the phrase doesn’t work:

??The unknown author of his most famous work was at the party yesterday.

Agreeing with ccshan, I would say that the problem here is that there is no antecedent for “his”.

What about the following alternative?

…bizarre fate of being [x=his most famous work, (unknown author of x)]

This way, “his most famous work” is still in the scope of bizarre. But, it’s not in the scope of unknown. Is that a problem?

]]> By: ccshan http://semantics-online.org/2008/02/i-within-i-in-nature#comment-15885 ccshan Mon, 11 Feb 2008 02:07:48 +0000 http://semantics-online.org/2008/02/i-within-i-in-nature#comment-15885 <p>The pronoun "his" in "the unknown author of his most famous work" could be bound by either the preceding proper name "Charles Webb" or the noun "(unknown) author". The former binding isn't really i-within-i, whereas the latter binding is. The two readings are different, thanks to the intensionality of "bizarre fate": is it bizarre for someone_i to be the unknown author of Charles Webb's most famous work (de re), or is it bizarre for someone_i to be the unknown author of his_i most famous work (de dicto)? Given that the de-re reading is plausible, this particular sentence doesn't really provide evidence that i-within-i can be ok.</p> The pronoun “his” in “the unknown author of his most famous work” could be bound by either the preceding proper name “Charles Webb” or the noun “(unknown) author”. The former binding isn’t really i-within-i, whereas the latter binding is. The two readings are different, thanks to the intensionality of “bizarre fate”: is it bizarre for someone_i to be the unknown author of Charles Webb’s most famous work (de re), or is it bizarre for someone_i to be the unknown author of his_i most famous work (de dicto)? Given that the de-re reading is plausible, this particular sentence doesn’t really provide evidence that i-within-i can be ok.

]]>