Bach-Peters paradox - Revision history

Luo at 14:18, 3 March 2008

2008-03-03T14:18:17Z

Luo: /* Link */

2008-03-03T14:17:23Z

Link

Luo: from Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics

2008-03-03T14:16:37Z

from Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics

New page

'''Bach-Peters paradox''' refers to a paradox in the description of sentences such as (i), first noted by Emmon Bach and Stanley Peters.

===Example===
''(i) [the student who deserves it i ]j will get
[the reward he j works for ]i''

===Comments===
If ''it'' i is intended to be co-referential with the reward ''he'' j works for, and ''he'' j is intended to be co-referential with the ''student who deserves it'' i, and if the coreferring terms are equated in the description, we have the paradox that a term ''a'' which properly contains a term ''b'', is equal to a term ''b'' which is properly contained in ''a'' (the paradox being that a term must be both equal and unequal to another term). In the case of (i) the paradox is avoided if the description is something like (ii).

''(ii) for all x, x:a student & for all y, y:a reward (if x
works for y & x deserves y, then x will get y)''

===Link===
[http://www2.let.uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/zoek.pl?lemma=A Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics]

===References===
*Bach, E. 1970. Problominalization. ''Linguistic Inquiry'' 1: 121.
*May, Robert 1985. ''Logical form''. MIT Press.

{{dc}}
[[Category:Syntax]]

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 ===Example===
-''(i) [the student who deserves it <sub>i</sub> ]<sub>j</sub> will get
+''(i) [the student who deserves it <sub>i</sub> ]<sub>j</sub> will get [the reward he <sub>j</sub> works for ]<sub>i</sub>''
 ===Comments===
 If ''it'' <sub>i</sub> is intended to be co-referential with the reward ''he'' <sub>j</sub> works for, and ''he'' <sub>j</sub> is intended to be co-referential with the ''student who deserves it'' <sub>i</sub>, and if the coreferring terms are equated in the description, we have the paradox that a term ''a'' which properly contains a term ''b'', is equal to a term ''b'' which is properly contained in ''a'' (the paradox being that a term must be both equal and unequal to another term). In the case of (i) the paradox is avoided if the description is something like (ii).
-''(ii) for all x, x:a student & for all y, y:a reward (if x
+''(ii) for all x, x:a student & for all y, y:a reward (if x works for y & x deserves y, then x will get y)''
 ===Link===

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 ===Link===
-[http://www2.let.uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/zoek.pl?lemma=A Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics]
+[http://www2.let.uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/zoek.pl?lemma=Bach-Peters+paradox&lemmacode=812 Utrecht Lexicon of Linguistics]
 ===References===