Search

This paper provides an overview of the syntax and semantics of Romance clitic impersonal constructions (CL-ICs), as present in the grammars of Spanish and Italian, within the framework of the Minimalist Program. Syntactically, these structures are characterised by the presence of the clitic se/si, which is analysed as a 0-person clitic, along with other person clitics in Romance, and heads a functional projection in the temporal domain immediately above T(ense). The syntactic properties of CL-ICs can be accounted for with reference to the complex agreement operations involving the clitic se/si, the empty category in subject position (a null generic pronoun: G-pro), the object argument in transitive contexts, and the features of the heads T and v. The interpretation of CL-ICs crucially relies on the presence of G-pro in the specifier position of vP: it introduces a variable that can be bound by an existential or a universal quantifier, which accounts for the variable quantificational force of CL-ICs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article comments on the book, Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism, by Herman Cappelen and Ernest Lepore. The author stated that Cappelen and Lepore defended semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism in their book. A great deal of such defense focuses on the relationship between speech act content and semantic content. The author argues that Cappelen's and Lepore's argument fails due to the fact that they did not paid attention to the distinction between semantic content and speech act content.

The article comments on the book, Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism, by Herman Cappelen and Ernest Lepore. The author claims that Cappelen and Lepore are minimalists. They claim that there is a short list of expressions and that the meaning of sentences is their truth-conditional content. They hold that sentences express complete propositions independent of context. The author explained his argument for Crazy Minimalism. The author also stated that there are two sides for the standard criterion for context-sensitivity.

The article offers some comments on the book, Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism, by Herman Cappelen and Ernest Lepore. The book's main thesis is that all context sensitivity can be traced through expressions. And when this thesis is combined with the claim that the semantic content of an insensitive sentence is a proposition expressed by every utterance of that sentence, the doctrine of semantic minimalism emerges. Although the author disagrees with a great deal in the book, he endorses the outlook of its authors. The author expresses his reservations about speech act pluralism and about semantic minimalism.

The article presents the response of Herman Cappelen and Ernest Lepore to commentaries about their book, Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. The authors argue that their view is not radical. They explained that Insensitive Semantics is about methodology in semantics. They focus on the interplay between certain basic methodological assumptions. The authors also clarified that the various tests for context sensitivity are only used to provide evidence that sentences or expressions are context sensitive.

The article offers some comments on the book, Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism, by Herman Cappelen and Ernest Lepore. There are some complaints by the authors against radical contextualism. The first one is that it postulates context sensitivity, another is that it blocks communication and third is its internal inconsistency. The notion that drives radical contextualism is that the open sentences of language speak of ways for things that admit understanding.