Skip Navigation



Analysis Advance Access published online on October 9, 2009
Analysis, doi:10.1093/analys/anp134
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Incurvati, L.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Authors 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Analysis Trust. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Rejection and valuations

Luca Incurvati and Peter Smith

University of Cambridge Cambridge CB3 9DA, UK li216@cam.ac.uk
University of Cambridge Cambridge CB3 9DA, UK ps218@cam.ac.uk

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Timothy Smiley's wonderful paper ‘Rejection’ (1996) is still perhaps not as well known or well understood as it should be. This note first gives a quick presentation of themes from that paper, though done in our own way, and then considers a putative line of objection – recently advanced by Julien Murzi and Ole Hjortland (2009) – to one of Smiley's key claims. Along the way, we consider the prospects for an intuitionistic approach to some of the issues discussed in Smiley's paper.


   1. The bilateralist framework
 
Imagine a speech community for whom any sentence is explicitly structured into a propositional content clause and a force-indicator. We could imagine that our community has quite a rich repertoire of force-indicators, including markers to indicate sentences whose primary serious uses have imperatival, interrogative and optative force. But we're going to be concentrating on just two of their force-markers, forming a complementary pair – one to mark . . . [Full Text of this Article]


   2. Bilateralism and the Carnap point
 

   3. Intuitionism and the Carnap point
 

   4. Can Smiley be Carnapped?
 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?