Abstract
The paper is about the interpretation of opaque verbs like “seek”, “owe”, and “resemble” which allow for unspecific readings of their (indefinite) objects. It is shown that the following two observations create a problem for semantic analysis:
-
(a)
The opaque position is upward monotone: “John seeks a unicorn” implies “John seeks an animal”, given that “unicorn” is more specific than “animal”.
-
(b)
Indefinite objects of opaque verbs allow for higher-order, or “underspecific”, readings: “Jones is looking for something Smith is looking for” can express that there is something unspecific that both Jones and Smith are looking for.
Given (a) and (b), it would seem that the following inference is hard to escape, if the premisses are construed unspecifically and the conclusion is taken on its under- specific reading:
-
Jones is looking for a sweater.
-
Smith is looking for a pen.
-
Smith is looking for something Jones is looking for.
It is shown that this monotonicity problem can be solved by analyzing unspecific readings as existential quantifications over the sub-properties of the property expressed by their object.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
van Benthem J. (1995). Language in action (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA, MIT Press
Buridanus, J. (1977). Sophismata. Stuttgart. Fromman-Holzboog [originally Paris 1350; English translation: Sophisms on Meaning and Truth. New York 1966.
Burton, S. (1995). Six issues in choosing a husband: Possessive relations in the lexical semantic structures of verbs. Rutgers University dissertation.
Carlson, G. N. (1977). Reference to kinds in English. University of Massachusetts dissertation.
Condoravdi, C., Crouch, D., & van den Berg, M. (2001a). Preventing existence. In Proceedings of the international conference on formal ontology in information systems. (pp. 162-173). Ogunquit, Maine.
Condoravdi, C., Crouch, D., & van den Berg, M. (2001b). Counting concepts. In Proceedings of the 13th Amsterdam colloquium. (pp. 67-72). Amsterdam.
Cooper R. (2005). Austinian truth, attitudes and type theory. Research on Language and Computation 3: 333–362
Davidson D. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. In: Rescher N. (eds) The logic of decision and action. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, pp 81–95
Forbes G., (2003). Meaning postulates, inference, and the relational/notional ambiguity. Facta Philosophica 5: 49-74
Geach P. (1965). A medieval discussion of intentionality. In: Bar-Hiliel Y. (eds) Logic, methodology and philosophy of science. Amsterdam, North Holland, pp 425–433
Geach P., (1967). Intentional identity. Journal of Philosophy 64: 627-632
Geurts B., (2005). Entertaining alternatives: Disjunctions as modals. Natural Language Semantics 13: 383-410
Grice P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA
Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford, Blackwell
Hintikka J. (1969). Semantics for propositional attitudes. In: Davis J.W. et al. (eds) Philosophical logic. Dordrecht, Reidel, pp 21–45
Kaplan D., (1968). Quantifying in. Synthese 19: 178-214
Kaplan D., (1975). How to Russell a Frege-Church. Journal of Philosophy 72: 716-729
Kratzer A. (1991). Modality. In: von Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (eds) Semantics. Berlin, De Gruyter, pp 639–650
Ladusaw, W. (1979). Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. University of Texas dissertation.
Larson, R., den Dikken, M., & Ludlow, P. (1999). Intensional transitive verbs and abstract clausal complementation. Ms. SUNY at Stony Brook. http://semlab2.sbs.sunysb.edu/Users/rlarson/ itv.pdf].
Lasersohn P., (1999). Pragmatic halos. Language 75: 522-551
Lerner J.-Y., Zimmermann T.E. (1983). Presupposition and quantifiers. In: Bäuerle R. et al. (eds) Meaning, use, and interpretation of language. Berlin, De Gruyter, pp 290–301
Lewis D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Oxford, Blackwell
Lewis D., (1979a). Attitudes de dicto and de se. Philosophical Review 88: 513-543
Lewis D., (1981). What puzzling Pierre does not believe. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 59: 283-289
Makinson D., (1984) ’Stenius’ approach to disjunctive permission. Theoria 50: 136-147
May R. (1985). Logical form. Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press
Moltmann F., (1997). Intensional verbs and quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics 5: 1-52
Montague R., (1969). On the nature of certain philosophical entities. Monist 53: 159-195
Montague R., (1970). Universal grammar. Theoria 36: 373-398
Montague R. (1973). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In: Hintikka J. et al. (eds) Approaches to natural language. Dordrecht, Reidel, pp 221–242
Moschovakis Y. (1974). Elementary induction on abstract stuctures. Amsterdam, North-Holland Press
Parsons T., (1990). Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press
Partee B. (1987). Noun phrase interpretation and type shifting principles. In Groenendijk J. et al. (eds) Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers. Berlin: De Gruyter., pp 115–143
Partee B., Rooth M. (1983). Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In: Bäuerle R. et al. (eds) Meaning, use, and interpretation of language. Berlin, De Gruyter, pp 361–383
Quine W.V.O., (1956). Quantifiers and propositional attitudes. Journal of Philosophy 53: 177-187
Quine W.V.O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press
van Rooy, R., & Zimmermann, T. E. (1996). An externalist account of intentional identity. In K. von Heusinger & U. Egli (Eds.), Proceedings of the Konstanz workshop ’reference and anaphorical relations’. (pp. 123-136). Arbeitspapier Nr. 79 der Fachgruppe Sprachwissenschaft, Universitä t Konstanz. [http://www.uh.uni-konstanz.de/kops/volltexte/2000/508/pdflap079 7.pdf]
Russell B. (1905). On denoting. Mind 14: 479-493
Sauerland, U. (2004). A new semantics for number. In R. Young & Y. Zhou (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT, (Vol. 13). Cornell University.
Stalnaker R. (1968). A theory of conditionals. In: Rescher N. (eds) Studies in logical theory. Oxford, Blackwell, pp 41–55
Stalnaker R. (1999). Context and content. Oxford, Oxford University Press
von Stechow A. (2001). Temporally opaque arguments in verbs of creation. In: Cecchetto B. et al. (eds) Semantic interfaces: reference, anaphora, aspect. Stanford, CSL, pp 278–319
Winter Y. (2001). Flexibility principles in Boolean semantics. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press
Zalta E.N. (1988). Intensional logic and the metaphysics of intentionality. Cambridge MA, MIT Press
Zimmermann T.E., (1993). On the proper treatment of opacity in certain verbs. Natural Language Semantics 1: 149-179
Zimmermann T.E., (2000). Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8: 255-290
Zimmermann T.E. (2005). Coercion vs. indeterminacy in opaque verbs. In: Kahle R. (eds) Intensionality. Natick, MA, AK Peters, pp 217–265
Zimmermann, T. E. (2006). Quaint paint. In H.-M. Gärtner et al. (Eds.), Between 40 and 60 puzzles for Krifka. Internet publication [http://www.zas.gwz-berlin.de/40-60-puzzles-for-krifka/pdf/ zimmermann.pdf]
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zimmermann, T.E. Monotonicity in opaque verbs. Linguistics & Philosophy 29, 715–761 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-006-9009-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-006-9009-z