Advertisement

Introduction

  • Melanie Bervoets
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 102)

Abstract

The empirical domain introduced here is a class of verbs whose members can be used to describe reports of opinion regarding future possibilities. Investigating the semantic nature of these “future-directed opining verbs”—including recommend, offer, and promise—involves an examination of several key properties, which also throws into relief what the verbs have in common with both the propositional attitudes and the speech reporting verbs, and where these groups diverge. Among the basic dimensions at play are compatibility with different kinds of subjects and objects, the types of events the verbs can describe, the presence or absence of a requirement for external attestation, and how the verbs combine with a dispositional operator. The future-directed opining verbs also interact with two important phenomena most commonly associated with modal quantifiers and attitudes, respectively, namely free choice disjunction and Neg-raising. Resulting expansions to the set of contexts where each applies set up critical examinations of existing theories, forming the secondary subject matter of this work.

References

  1. Abusch, D. 1997. Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy 20(1): 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abusch, D. 1998. Sequence of tense, intensionality and scope. In The proceedings of the 7th west coast conference on formal linguistics, ed. Hagit Borer. The Stanford Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
  3. Alonso-Ovalle. 2006. Disjunction in alternative semantics: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
  4. Anand, Pranav, and Valentine Hacquard. 2008. Epistemics with attitude. In SALT XVIII, ed. T. Friedman and S. Ito. Ithaca: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  5. Bar-Lev, Moshe E., and Danny Fox. 2017. Universal free choice and innocent inclusion. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 27: 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartsch, R. 1973. “Negative transportation” gibt es nicht. Linguistische Berichte 27: 1–7.Google Scholar
  7. Beck, S., and K. Johnson. 2004. Double objects again. Linguistic Inquiry 35(1): 97–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boneh, Nora, and Edit Doron. 2008. Habituality and the habitual aspect. In Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect, ed. Susan Rothstein, 321–347. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boneh, Nora, and Edit Doron. 2009. Modal and temporal aspects of habituality. In Syntax, lexical semantics, and event structure, ed. M. Rappaport-Hovav, E. Doron, and I. Sichel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Boneh, Nora, and Edit Doron. 2013. Hab and Gen in the expression of habituality. Genericity 43: 176–191.Google Scholar
  11. Burge, T. 1977. Belief de re. The Journal of Philosophy 74(6): 338–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carlson, Gregory. 1977. Reference to kinds in English: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
  13. Chierchia, Gennaro, Danny Fox, and Benjamin Spector. 2012. The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, ed. C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, and Paul Portner, vol. 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  14. Collins, Chris, and Paul M. Postal. 2014. Classical NEG raising: An essay on the syntax of negation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crnič, Luka, Emmanuel Chemla, and Danny Fox. 2015. Scalar implicatures of embedded disjunction. Natural Language Semantics 23(4): 271–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dowty, David. 1986. The effects of aspectual class on the temporal structure of discourse: Semantics or pragmatics? Linguistics and Philosophy 9(1): 37–61.Google Scholar
  17. Fillmore, C. 1963. The position of embedding transformations in grammar. Word 19: 208–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fodor, J.D. 1970. The linguistic description of opaque contexts. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
  19. Fox, Danny. 2007. Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics 71: 112.Google Scholar
  20. Gajewski, Jon Robert. 2007. Neg-raising and polarity. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 289–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Homer, Vincent. 2012. Neg-raising and positive polarity: The view from modals. Semantics and Pragmatics (accepted with minor revisions).Google Scholar
  22. Horn, Laurence. 1971. Negative transportation: Unsafe at any speed? CLS 7: 120–133.Google Scholar
  23. Horn, Laurence. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators. UCLA dissertation.Google Scholar
  24. Horn, Laurence. 1978. Remarks on Neg-raising. Syntax and Semantics 9: 129–220.Google Scholar
  25. Horn, Laurence. 2014. The cloud of unknowing. In Black book: A festschrift in honor of Frans Zwarts, ed. Jack Hoeksema and Dicky Gilbers, 178–196. Groningen: University of Groningen. 178–196.Google Scholar
  26. Horn, Laurence, and Samuel Bayer. 1984. Short-circuited implicature: A negative contribution. Linguistics and Philosophy 7(4): 397–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kamp, Hans. 1973. Free choice permission. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol. 74, 57–74. London: The Aristotelian Society Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Klinedinst, Nathan Winter. 2007. Plurality and possibility. UCLA dissertation.Google Scholar
  29. Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 8: 92–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krifka, Manfred, Francis Jeffrey Pelletier, Gregory N. Carlson, Alice ter Meulen, Gennaro Chierchia, and Godehard Link. 1995. Genericity: An introduction. In The generic book, ed. Gregory Carlson and Francis Jeffrey Pelletier. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lakoff, Robin. 1969. A syntactic argument for negative transportation. CLS 5: 149–157.Google Scholar
  32. Lewis, David. 1979. Attitude de dicto and de se. The Philosophical Review 88(4): 513–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Menendez-Benito, Paula. 2012. On dispositional sentences. Genericity 43: 276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meyer, Marie-Christine. 2015. Generalized free choice and missing alternatives. Journal of Semantics 33(4): 703–754.Google Scholar
  35. Ogihara, Toshiyuki. 2013. In Tense, attitudes, and scope, vol. 58. Springer Science and Business Media.Google Scholar
  36. Partee, B.H. 1974. Opacity and scope. In Semantics and Philosophy, ed. Milton K. Munitz and Peter K. Unger, 81–101. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Quine, W.V.O. 1956. Quantifiers and propositional attitudes. The Journal of Philosophy 53(5): 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rimell, Laura. 2004. Habitual sentences and generic quantification. In Proceedings of WCCFL, ed. G. Garding and M. Tsujimura, vol. 23, 663–676.Google Scholar
  39. Romoli, Jacopo. 2013. A scalar implicature-based approach to neg-raising. Linguistics and Philosophy 36: 291–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rothstein, Susan. 2004. Structuring events. Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Russell, Bertrand. 1919. On propositions: What they are and how they mean. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes 2: 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sauerland, Uli. 2004. Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 367–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Simons, Mandy. 2005. Dividing things up: The semantics of or and the modal/or interaction. Natural Language Semantics 13(3): 271–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. von Stechow, A. 2002. Binding by verbs: Tense, person and mood under attitudes. In Proceedings of the 33rd North East Linguistics Society Meeting, ed. Makoto Kadowaki and Shigeto Kawahara, 379–403. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
  45. Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and times. Philosophical Review LXVI: 143–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zimmermann, Thomas Ede. 2000. Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8(4): 255–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zucchi, Sandro. 1998. Aspect shift. In Events and grammar, ed. Susan Rothstein. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melanie Bervoets
    • 1
  1. 1.TorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations