波斯人的资料证实了哪一种间接报告的观点

Pub Date : 2018-01-01 DOI:10.1163/18773109-00901008

M. A. S. Nodoushan

{"title":"波斯人的资料证实了哪一种间接报告的观点","authors":"M. A. S. Nodoushan","doi":"10.1163/18773109-00901008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I will review Davidson’s paratactic account of indirect reports, the attacks leveled against it, and the support it received. I will then provide data from Persian which seem to support the idea that neither Davidson and his proponents nor his opponents were completely right, and that an adequate theory of indirect reports is doomed to be semantico-pragmatic in nature.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18773109-00901008","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Which view of indirect reports do Persian data corroborate\",\"authors\":\"M. A. S. Nodoushan\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/18773109-00901008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper, I will review Davidson’s paratactic account of indirect reports, the attacks leveled against it, and the support it received. I will then provide data from Persian which seem to support the idea that neither Davidson and his proponents nor his opponents were completely right, and that an adequate theory of indirect reports is doomed to be semantico-pragmatic in nature.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18773109-00901008\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00901008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00901008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 13

摘要

在这篇论文中，我将回顾戴维森对间接报告的paratactic描述，对它的攻击，以及它所得到的支持。然后，我将提供来自波斯的数据，这些数据似乎支持戴维森及其支持者和反对者都不完全正确的观点，并且间接报告的适当理论在本质上注定是语义实用主义的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

Which view of indirect reports do Persian data corroborate

In this paper, I will review Davidson’s paratactic account of indirect reports, the attacks leveled against it, and the support it received. I will then provide data from Persian which seem to support the idea that neither Davidson and his proponents nor his opponents were completely right, and that an adequate theory of indirect reports is doomed to be semantico-pragmatic in nature.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助