Abstract
The received view about meteorological predicates like 'rain' is that they carry an argument slot for a location which can be filled explicitly or implicitly. The view assumes that 'rain', in the absence of an explicit location, demands that the context provide a specific location. In an earlier article in this journal, I provided a counter-example, viz. a context in which 'it is raining' receives a location-indefinite interpretation. On the basis of that example, I argued that when there is tacit reference to a location, it takes place for pragmatic reasons and casts no light on the semantics of meteorological predicates. Since then, several authors have reanalysed the counter-example, so as to make it compatible with the standard view. I discuss those attempts and argue that my account is superior.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 123-146 |
| Number of pages | 24 |
| Journal | Linguistics and Philosophy |
| Volume | 30 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Feb 2007 |
Keywords
- semantics/pragmatics interface
- free enrichment
- argument roles
- meteorological predicates
- events
- locations
- unarticulated constituents
- UNARTICULATED CONSTITUENTS
- LOGICAL FORM