Notes on anti-compositional Grice, or it is UNcompositional?

Speranza

The following are the relevant footnotes to Szabo's section against 'compositionality' in the Stanford Encyclopedia entry.


16. The problem is originally raised in Higginbotham (1986).

17.

"The core idea is from Lewis (1975) — sometimes subordinate clauses restrict the domain of quantifiers. This idea has been generalized in Kratzer (1986)."


18.

Cf. for example Barker (1997), von Fintel (1998), Higginbotham (forthcoming) and von Fintel and Iatridou (ms.)

19. Cf. Heim (1982), Groenendijk and Stokhof (1990), Groenendijk and Stokhof (1991), and Chierchia (1995).

20. Travis (1994): 171 – 172. See also Travis (1996), (1997), and Lahav (1989).

21. Cf. Sainsbury (2001) and Berg (2002).

22. Cf. Szabó (2000c).

23. Cf. Cappelen and Lepore (forthcoming).

24. The explanation may follow the path of Salmon (1986).

25.

"For example, one could take the clausal complement of ‘believes’ to be an interpreted logical form - something which includes phonological information about the words employed in the clause; cf. Higginbotham (1986), Segal (1989), Larson and Ludlow (1993)."

"Such theories violate compositionality because they maintain that the semantic value of a that-clause includes phonological information even though the semantic values of their constituents and their mode of combination do not."

"The fact that simple recursive semantic theories can violate compositionality should raise extra concerns about the strength of arguments from productivity and systematicity."

26. For example, Richard (1990), Crimmins and Perry (1989) and Crimmins (1992).