Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Properties of propositional attitude operators

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A simple model accounting for semantic properties of propositional attitude operators in negative contexts with no reference to possible worlds is proposed. Verbs occurring in such operators denote relations between individuals and specific sets of sentences (of a given natural language) and their negation is defined as the complement within a specific set of cognitively determined sentences. This approach avoids in particular the problem of intensionality of propositional attitude operators and allows to use many tools from the generalised quantifier theory. In that way the negation giving rise to factive presuppositions and to the neg-raising is defined in a natural way.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anand, P. & Hacquard, V. (2014). Factivity, belief and discourse. In I. Crnič & U. Sauerland (Eds.), The art and craft semantics: A festschrift for Irene Heim (Vol. 1, pp. 69–90). Cambridge, MA: MIT WPL.

  • Bartsch, R. (1973). “Negative transportation” gibt es nicht. Linguistische Berichte, 27, 1–7.

  • Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, R. (2019). Inquisitive semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, C. & Postal, P. (2018). Disentangling two distinct notions of NEG raising. Semantics and Pragmatics 11(5).

  • Egré, P. (2008). Question-embedding and factivity. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 77, 85–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fillmore, C. (1965). Entailments rules in a semantic theory. POLA Report N10, 60–82. Reprinted in J. Rosenberg & C. Travis (Eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Language, Prentice Hall 1972.

  • Higginbotham, J. (2006). Sententialism: The thesis that complement clauses refer to themselves. Philosophical Issues, 16, 101–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, L. R. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen, L. (1977). Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1(1), 3–44.

  • Kiparsky, P., & Kiparsky, C. (1970). Fact. In M. Bierwisch & K. E. Heidolph (Eds.), Progress in linguistics (pp. 143–173). The Hague:Mouton.

  • Klein, E. (1975). Two sorts of factive predicates. Pragmatics Microfiche, 1, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, C. (2019). Triviality and interrogative embedding: Context sensitivity, factivity and neg-raising. Natural Language Semantics, 27(3), 227–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B. H. (1982). Belief-sentences and the limits of semantics. In S. Peters & E. Saarinen (Eds.), Processes, beliefs, and questions (pp. 87–106). Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pelletier, F. J. (1994). The principle of semantic compositionality. Topoi, 13, 11–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, P. (2005). The lazy Frenchman’s approach to the subjunctive. In T. Geerts, I. van Ginneken, & H. Jacobs (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory. Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’, 2003 (pp. 269–309). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

  • Spector, B., & Egré, P. (2015). A uniform semantics for embedded interrogatives: An answer, not necessarily the answer. Synthese, 127, 1729–1784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsohatzidis, S. L. (1993). Speaking of truth-telling: The view from Wh-complements. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 271–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsohatzidis, S. L. (1997). More telling examples: A reply to Holton. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 625–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uegaki, W. (2019). The semantics of question-embedding predicates. Language and Linguistics Compass, 13, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westerståhl, D. (2012). Midpoints. In T. Graf, D. Paperno, A. Szabolcsi, & J. Tellings (Eds.), Theories of everything: In honor of Ed Keenan (pp. 427–439). Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Linguistics Department Publications.

  • Zuber, R. (1975/1977). Decomposition of factives. Language Studies, 1(3), 407–421.

  • Zuber, R. (1980). Note on why factives cannot assert what their complement sentences express. Semantikos vol. 4–2.

  • Zuber, R. (1982). Some universal constraints on the semantic content of complex sentences. In R. Dirven & G. Radden (Eds.), Issues in the theory of Universal Grammar (pp. 145–157). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuber, R. (2007). Indépendance faible des quantificateurs. Logique and Analyse, 198, 173–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuber, R. (2020). Towards an algebraic semantics for implicatives. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 29(4), 525–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuber, R. (2021). Entailments with sentential predicates. In P. Boroni, C. Benzmüller, & Y. N. Wáng (Eds.), Logic and argumentation. CLAR 2021 (pp. 543–550). Cham: Springer.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rayé des cadres du CNRS, Paris, France

    R. Zuber

Authors
  1. R. Zuber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Zuber.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Thanks to Bob Matthews, Savas Tsohatzidis, Ross Charnock and two reviewers of the journal for mostly pertinent and enlightening remarks.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zuber, R. Properties of propositional attitude operators. Linguist and Philos 46, 237–257 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-022-09361-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-022-09361-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation