Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 327–352 | Cite as

Judgment ascriptions

Research Article


Some propositional attitude verbs require that the complement contain some “subjective predicate”. In terms of the theory proposed by Lasersohn, these verbs would seem to identify the “judge” of the embedded proposition with the matrix subject, and there have been suggestions in this direction. I show that it is possible to analyze these verbs as setting the judge and doing nothing more; then according to whether a judge index or a judge argument is assumed, unless the complement contains a subjective predicate, the whole matrix is redundant or there is a type conflict. I further show that certain clear facts argue for assuming a judge argument which can be filled by a contextually salient entity–or by the subject of a subjective attitude verb.


Judgment Propositional attitudes Subjective predicates Personal taste 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abusch, D. (1993). Two theories of tense in intensional contexts. In P. Dekker & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Amsterdam colloquium (pp. 47–66). Amsterdam: ILLC.Google Scholar
  2. Bartsch R. (1973) “Negative Transportation” gibt es nicht. Linguistische Berichte 27: 1–7Google Scholar
  3. Brogaard, B. (ed.) (2009). Relative truth. Special double issue of Synthese.Google Scholar
  4. Egan A. (2007) Epistemic modals, relativism, and assertion. Philosophical Studies 133: 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gajewski J.R. (2007) Neg-raising and polarity. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 289–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Glanzberg M. (2007) Context, content, and relativism. Philosophical Studies 136: 1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Heim, I. (to appear). Definiteness and indefiniteness. In C. Maienborn, P. Portner, & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  8. Horn, L. R. (1978). Remarks on neg-raising. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics (pp. 129–220). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Horn L.R. (1985) Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language 61: 121–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kennedy Ch. (2007) Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 1–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kölbel, M., García-Carpintero, M. (eds) (2008) Relative truth. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Kratzer A. (1977) What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 337–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kratzer A. (1981) The notional category of modality. In: Eikmeyer H.-J., Rieser H. (eds) Words, worlds and contexts. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 38–74Google Scholar
  14. Kratzer A. (1991) Modality. In: von Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (eds) Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 639–650Google Scholar
  15. Lande, I. (2009). Subjektive Einstellungsberichte im Deutschen: Einstellungsverben und beurteilungsabhängige Prädikate. MA thesis, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  16. Lasersohn P. (2005) Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 28: 643–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lasersohn, P. (2009). Relative truth, speaker commitment, and control of implicit arguments. In B. Brogaard (Ed.), Relative truth (pp. 359–374).Google Scholar
  18. MacFarlane, J. (to appear). Epistemic modals are assessment-sensitive. In B. Weatherson & A. Egan (Eds.), Epistemic modality. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  19. Moltmann, F. (2009). Relative truth and the first person. In Philosophical Studies (to appear)Google Scholar
  20. Nouwen, R. (2007). The (absolute) truth about taste. In Presentation at the 8th Szklarska Poreba workshop on the Roots of Pragmasemantics.Google Scholar
  21. Percus O. (2000) Constraints on some other variables in syntax. Natural Language Semantics 8: 173–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stephenson T. (2007a) Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 487–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stephenson, T. (2007b). Towards a Theory of Subjective Meaning. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  24. Stojanovic I. (2007) Talking about taste: Disagreement, implicit arguments, and relative truth. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 691–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. von Stechow, A. (1995). On the proper treatment of tense. In M. Simons & T. Galloway (Eds.), Proceedings from semantics and linguistic theory V (pp. 362–386). Ithaca, New York: CLC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations