Leslie et al. on attitude ascription (2010)  A short paper arguing against the "theory" of attitude ascription canvassed by Alan Leslie and his associates in a series of journal publications. The paper was turned down by every single journal that had allowed Leslie et al. to air their ideas, and in each case the argument was the same: "We only publish experimental papers."

Neurocognition of language: good, bad, and bogus (2007)  This paper was born out of frustration. After years of reading enthusiastic reports on advances in the neurocognition of language, I came to realise that I had been wasting my time: all those articles had taught me essentially nothing and often the quality of the reported research was doubtful, if not downright shoddy. This, then, is a consumer's report of sorts. The paper was turned down by several neuroscience journals, because it was "not the appropriate format", "too long", or "failed to report new experimental data". Language and Cognitive Processes came close to accepting it, but when the editor wanted me to simultaneously satisfy the wildly inconsistent demands of three or four reviewers, I gave up.

Are the number words learnable? (2007)  A reply to a paper by Rips et al., which appeared in Cognition. I submitted it to the same journal, but unfortunately somebody else had submitted a reply before me, and the editor felt that one was enough.

Exclusive disjunction without implicature (2006)  This note argues that there are good reasons for doubting that the exclusive interpretation of "or" is due to a scalar implicature. I never tried to get this published, but the gist of the argument is in my book, "Quantity implicatures" (2010).

On an ambiguity in quantified conditionals (2004)  I argue that the interplay between conditionals and quantifiers engenders systematic ambiguities, which often may be hard to detect but are there nonetheless, and fully expected if we take Lewis's view that if-clauses can act as domain restrictors. If true, this claim has consequences for various issues related to the interpretation of conditionals and quantifiers. The paper has been cited often enough that I've come to believe that it wasn't entirely useless. Why didn't I try to get it published? I don't remember.


Comments