Attitudes De Se

  • Gaetano Fiorin
  • Denis Delfitto
Part of the Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology book series (PEPRPHPS, volume 25)


In this chapter, we introduce the notion of de se propositional attitude. This is a propositional attitude where the subject of the attitude unambiguously identifies the object of the attitude as herself. We illustrate this notion by presenting some of the linguistic structures that express it—in particular, control structures and logophoric pronouns.


De se propositional attitudes Indirect discourse Grammatical control Logophoric pronouns 


  1. Capone, A. (2016). The pragmatics of indirect reports: Sociophilosophical considerations. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Castañeda, H.-N. (1966). ‘He’: A study in the logic of self-consciousness. Ratio, 8, 130–157.Google Scholar
  3. Castañeda, H.-N. (1968). On the logic of attributions of self-knowledge to others. Journal of Philosophy, 65, 439–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chierchia, G. (1989). Anaphora and attitudes de se. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, & P. van Emde Boas (Eds.), Semantics and contextual expressions (pp. 1–31). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  5. Clements, G. N. (1975). The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: Its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages, 10, 141–177.Google Scholar
  6. Delfitto, D., & Fiorin, G. (2011). Person features and pronominal anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry, 42(2), 193–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Delfitto, D., & Fiorin, G. (2014). Indexicality and left-periphery. Rivista di Linguistica, 26(1), 59–92.Google Scholar
  8. Delfitto, D., Fiorin, G., & Reboul, A. (2016). The semantics of person and de se effects in free indirect discourse. SpringerPlus., 5, 1451.Google Scholar
  9. Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Morgan, J. L. (1970). On the criterion of identity for noun phrase deletion. In Papers from the sixth regional meeting of the CLS (pp. 380–389). Chicago: The Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
  11. Pearson, H. (2013). A judge-free semantics for predicates of personal taste. Journal of Semantics, 30, 103–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pearson, H. (2015). The interpretation of the logophoric pronoun in ewe. Natural Language Semantics, 23(2), 77–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Schlenker, P. (1999). Propositional attitudes and indexicality: A cross-categorial approach. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  14. Schlenker, P. (2003). A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 29–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stephenson, T. C. (2007a). Towards a theory of subjective meaning. PhD disssertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  16. Stephenson, T. C. (2007b). Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30, 487–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. von Stechow, A. (2003). Feature deletion under semantic binding. In M. Kadowaki & S. Kawahara (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 33 (pp. 133–157). Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gaetano Fiorin
    • 1
  • Denis Delfitto
    • 2
  1. 1.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of VeronaVeronaItaly

Personalised recommendations