{"title":"波斯人的资料证实了哪一种间接报告的观点","authors":"M. A. S. Nodoushan","doi":"10.1163/18773109-00901008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I will review Davidson’s paratactic account of indirect reports, the attacks leveled against it, and the support it received. I will then provide data from Persian which seem to support the idea that neither Davidson and his proponents nor his opponents were completely right, and that an adequate theory of indirect reports is doomed to be semantico-pragmatic in nature.","PeriodicalId":43536,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Pragmatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18773109-00901008","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Which view of indirect reports do Persian data corroborate\",\"authors\":\"M. A. S. Nodoushan\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/18773109-00901008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper, I will review Davidson’s paratactic account of indirect reports, the attacks leveled against it, and the support it received. I will then provide data from Persian which seem to support the idea that neither Davidson and his proponents nor his opponents were completely right, and that an adequate theory of indirect reports is doomed to be semantico-pragmatic in nature.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43536,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Review of Pragmatics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18773109-00901008\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Review of Pragmatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00901008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Pragmatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00901008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Which view of indirect reports do Persian data corroborate
In this paper, I will review Davidson’s paratactic account of indirect reports, the attacks leveled against it, and the support it received. I will then provide data from Persian which seem to support the idea that neither Davidson and his proponents nor his opponents were completely right, and that an adequate theory of indirect reports is doomed to be semantico-pragmatic in nature.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
