@unpublished{Chemla:2006DummyAlt,
	abstract = {The transparency theory seems to make heavy use of tautologous pieces of sentences. I discuss here the necessity of such a baffling technical trick to match the achievement of dynamic semantics (Heim, 1983). I show that 1) tautologies are not necessary when the language is limited to the propositional fragment proposed in the first part of Schlenker's analysis and 2) they are necessary for quantificational cases (and similarly with modal operators but this is not part of Schlenker's discussion). Finally, I suggest that this trick could actually be avoided in more expressive frameworks.
},
	author = {Emmanuel Chemla},
	date-added = {2007-05-15 17:20:26 -0400},
	date-modified = {2017-02-27 19:47:56 +0000},
	note = {Ms. LSCP \& MIT.},
	title = {{Aren't Dummy Alternatives only Technical Shortcuts?}},
	url = {http://www.emmanuel.chemla.free.fr/Material/DummyAlternatives.pdf},
	year = {2006},
	bdsk-url-1 = {http://www.emmanuel.chemla.free.fr/Material/DummyAlternatives.pdf}}

{"_id":"HM7fpv5vG8iERcE3q","bibbaseid":"chemla-arentdummyalternativesonlytechnicalshortcuts-2006","downloads":6,"creationDate":"2017-02-21T22:34:23.894Z","title":"Aren't Dummy Alternatives only Technical Shortcuts?","author_short":["Chemla, E."],"year":2006,"bibtype":"unpublished","biburl":"http://www.emmanuel.chemla.free.fr/Material/EmmanuelChemlaBibliography.bib","bibdata":{"bibtype":"unpublished","type":"unpublished","abstract":"The transparency theory seems to make heavy use of tautologous pieces of sentences. I discuss here the necessity of such a baffling technical trick to match the achievement of dynamic semantics (Heim, 1983). I show that 1) tautologies are not necessary when the language is limited to the propositional fragment proposed in the first part of Schlenker's analysis and 2) they are necessary for quantificational cases (and similarly with modal operators but this is not part of Schlenker's discussion). Finally, I suggest that this trick could actually be avoided in more expressive frameworks. ","author":[{"firstnames":["Emmanuel"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Chemla"],"suffixes":[]}],"date-added":"2007-05-15 17:20:26 -0400","date-modified":"2017-02-27 19:47:56 +0000","note":"Ms. LSCP & MIT.","title":"Aren't Dummy Alternatives only Technical Shortcuts?","url":"http://www.emmanuel.chemla.free.fr/Material/DummyAlternatives.pdf","year":"2006","bdsk-url-1":"http://www.emmanuel.chemla.free.fr/Material/DummyAlternatives.pdf","bibtex":"@unpublished{Chemla:2006DummyAlt,\n\tabstract = {The transparency theory seems to make heavy use of tautologous pieces of sentences. I discuss here the necessity of such a baffling technical trick to match the achievement of dynamic semantics (Heim, 1983). I show that 1) tautologies are not necessary when the language is limited to the propositional fragment proposed in the first part of Schlenker's analysis and 2) they are necessary for quantificational cases (and similarly with modal operators but this is not part of Schlenker's discussion). Finally, I suggest that this trick could actually be avoided in more expressive frameworks.\n},\n\tauthor = {Emmanuel Chemla},\n\tdate-added = {2007-05-15 17:20:26 -0400},\n\tdate-modified = {2017-02-27 19:47:56 +0000},\n\tnote = {Ms. LSCP \\& MIT.},\n\ttitle = {{Aren't Dummy Alternatives only Technical Shortcuts?}},\n\turl = {http://www.emmanuel.chemla.free.fr/Material/DummyAlternatives.pdf},\n\tyear = {2006},\n\tbdsk-url-1 = {http://www.emmanuel.chemla.free.fr/Material/DummyAlternatives.pdf}}\n\n","author_short":["Chemla, E."],"key":"Chemla:2006DummyAlt","id":"Chemla:2006DummyAlt","bibbaseid":"chemla-arentdummyalternativesonlytechnicalshortcuts-2006","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://www.emmanuel.chemla.free.fr/Material/DummyAlternatives.pdf"},"metadata":{"authorlinks":{"chemla, e":"http://www.emmanuel.chemla.free.fr/"}}},"search_terms":["aren","dummy","alternatives","technical","shortcuts","chemla"],"keywords":[],"authorIDs":["zWrRBQxp6ofKNusXt"],"dataSources":["tjiGpM3QkXrAR3DJb"]}