@article {jespersen_b2011:2229,
	title = {Traditionally, I am Entitled to a Last Meal},
	journal = {Organon F},
	volume = {18},
	number = {1},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {5-13},
	type = {State},
	abstract = {Nunberg maintains that there are cases like {\textquotedblleft}I am traditionally entitled to a last meal{\textquotedblright}, as uttered by a condemned prisoner facing the firing squad, which suggest that an indexical like {\textquoteleft}I{\textquoteright} does double duty as a vehicle of singular and general reference. I argue against this claim. My position is that the sentence should be factored out into two: {\textquotedblleft}Traditionally, a condemned prisoner is entitled to a last meal{\textquotedblright} and {\textquotedblleft}I am a condemned prisoner{\textquotedblright}. Nunberg{\textquoteright}s sentence is generated by means of an illicit substitution of {\textquoteleft}I{\textquoteright} for {\textquoteleft}a condemned prisoner{\textquoteright} inside the scope of {\textquoteleft}traditionally{\textquoteright}. The morale is that sloppy or literally nonsensical speech like Nunberg{\textquoteright}s sentence is not suitable as data for logical analysis of natural language. What is suitable data is the two-premise argument I put forward.},
	url = {http://www.klemens.sav.sk/fiusav/doc/organon/2011/1/5-13.pdf},
	author = {Jespersen, Bj{\o}rn}
}
