The Infona portal uses cookies, i.e. strings of text saved by a browser on the user's device. The portal can access those files and use them to remember the user's data, such as their chosen settings (screen view, interface language, etc.), or their login data. By using the Infona portal the user accepts automatic saving and using this information for portal operation purposes. More information on the subject can be found in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. By closing this window the user confirms that they have read the information on cookie usage, and they accept the privacy policy and the way cookies are used by the portal. You can change the cookie settings in your browser.
Nunberg maintains that there are cases like 'I am traditionally entitled to a last meal', as uttered by a condemned prisoner facing the firing squad, which suggest that an indexical like 'I' does double duty as a vehicle of singular and general reference. The author argues against this claim. His position is that the sentence should be factored out into two: 'Traditionally, a condemned prisoner is entitled to a last meal' and 'I am a condemned prisoner'. Nunberg's sentence is generated by means of an illicit substitution of 'I' for 'a condemned prisoner' inside the scope of 'traditionally'. The morale is that sloppy or literally nonsensical speech like Nunberg's sentence is not suitable as a data for logical analysis of natural language. What is the suitable data is the two-premise argument he puts forward.