Bodyguards under Cover: the Status of Individual Concepts

Magdalena Schwager
2015 Semantics and Linguistic Theory  
Note that the last sentence of (3) also has a reading of partial change under which the individual picked out by the proper name Petra Roth changes with respect to a particular property, cf. Löbner (1979). In this paper, I focus exclusively on the reading where different individuals are picked out before and after the change. Intuitively, (7) is valid. However, given the translations obtained from the PTQframework (cf. 8) and the interpretation of rise (cf. 9) it is predicted to be invalid. 3
more » ... roughout this paper, I translate LFs to a variant of Ty2: e the type of individuals, t the type of truth values, s the type of indices, which consist of a world and a time component. Interpretation [[ · ]] proceeds with respect to a standard model M and an assignment g, reference to which is mostly ignored for simplicity. Section 4.1 adds a further parameter F . 4 (7) is a recast from Löbner (1981). Following Romero (2006) , I insert always to ensure the habitual reading crucial for validity of the inference. She shows that syntactic decomposition into quantification over worlds and times already avoids many mispredictions; yet, certain syntactic assumptions or a meaning postulate are needed in addition. (13) the ≡ λP s,e ,t λQ s,e ,t .∃x[∀y[P (y) ↔ y = x] ∧ Q(x)] 5 Note that Lasersohn's (2005) version sketched in (12) fails to take into account the implicit argument. Therefore, (5) is still not predicted to be valid: (i) At all worlds and times, the temperature of Cécile's refrigerator not of my refrigerator, is the same as the temperature of Ede's refrigerator. The temperature of the Cécile's refrigerator is rising. intuitively ⇒; Montague+MP(12) predict ⇒ The temperature of Ede's refrigerator is rising. Assume that at all indices, the individual concept c records the temperature of Cécile's refrigerator, and apart from (w, t), the temperature of Ede's refrigerator is recorded by x ede , and the one of mine by x m (so both are still temperatures). At (w, t), x m and x ede are exchanged, but x m (w, t) = c(w, t). Even if the premises and (12) are true, the consequence need not be. 6 Cf. Zimmermann (1999) for more general discussion of the status of meaning postulates.
doi:10.3765/salt.v0i0.2971 fatcat:cigvgyonxbhtvozqdtzjw6dutu