Re: veridicality in English

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

[this written in haste - sorry]

John:
> > > Likewise, if I say
> > > (with Paul Revere) "The British [persons] are coming!", this cannot be
> > > true unless it is the British who are coming.
> >
> > I believe this is a misreport of the facts of English. Some weeks
> > ago I discussed an example (taken from McCawley): "the man
> > standing over there drinking a martini" - here I'm not claiming
> > that he's drinking a martini; I'm just describing him to help
> > you identify who I'm talking about. Hence THE is nonveridical.
>
> I grant that in McCawley's example, "the" is non-veridical, but your
> example does not refute my example.  If, in fact, it was the
> French who were coming, then Revere's statement would be false.
> Hence "the" can be veridical or non-veridical depending on context.

I'll assume this is not an empirical question, since I don't know
how to prove the matter.

I would say that since we agree that THE is sometimes nonveridical,
and since an adequate theory of pragmatics can account all cases
of THE if (even if) THE is assumed to be always nonveridical,
the most parsimonious semantics of THE is to take it to always
be nonveridical.

I certainly don't share your judgement that the truth of
Paul Revere's statement is contingent on whether the comers
really are British.

> > > Likewise, the use of "a" to indicate a new referent can override
> > > any default veridicality.  The narrative use of  "A man went to the
> > > store yesterday" does not require that the referent really is a man.
> >
> > ? I don't see what you mean.
>
> There are two possible interpretations of "A man went to the store
> yesterday".  In one sense, it is synonymous with "There is a man
> who went" etc., and here "a" is veridical: if no man went to the
> store yesterday, the statement is false.
>
> But consider the following narrative:  "A man went to the store
> yesterday.  The next day, he went to the office.  Later, the
> man flew to Singapore."  In this case "a man" and "the man"
> must be either both non-veridical or both veridical; I hold that
> they are both non-veridical.

I don't see why '"a man" and "the man" must be either both
non-veridical or both veridical'. I would have said the former
is veridical and the latter isn;t, and can't see the inadequacy
of this.

--And