Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 32, Issue 6, pp 523–552 | Cite as

Perspective-shifting with appositives and expressives

  • Jesse A. Harris
  • Christopher PottsEmail author
Research Article


Much earlier work claims that appositives and expressives are invariably speaker-oriented. These claims have recently been challenged, most extensively by Amaral et al. (Linguist and Philos 30(6): 707–749, 2007). We are convinced by this new evidence. The questions we address are (i) how widespread are non-speaker-oriented readings of appositives and expressives, and (ii) what are the underlying linguistic factors that make such readings available? We present two experiments and novel corpus work that bear directly on this issue. We find that non-speaker-oriented readings, while rare in actual language use, are systematic. We also find that non-speaker-oriented readings occur even outside of attitude predications, which leads us to favor an account based in pragmatically-mediated perspective shifting over one that relies on semantic binding by attitude predicates.


Appositives Expressives Perspective Corpus pragmatics Experimental pragmatics Regression analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aloni, M. (2000). Quantification under conceptual covers. Ph.D. thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam. Published in the ILLC Dissertation Series, 2001-1.Google Scholar
  2. Amaral P., Roberts C., Allyn Smith E. (2007) Review of the logic of conventional implicatures by Chris Potts. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(6): 707–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anand P. (2007) Re-expressing judgment. Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anand, P., & Nevins, A. (2004). Shifty operators in changing contexts. In K. Watanabe & R. B. Young (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 14 (pp. 20–37). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  5. Aoun J., Choueiri L., Hornstein N. (2001) Resumption, movement, and derivational economy. Linguistic Inquiry 32(3): 371–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Asher N. (2000) Truth conditional discourse semantics for parentheticals. Journal of Semantics 17(1): 31–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baayen R.H. (2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Bach K. (1999) The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 22(4): 367–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bach K. (2006) Review of Christopher Potts, ‘The logic of conventional implicatures’. Journal of Linguistics 42(2): 490–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beaver D., Clark B.Z. (2008) Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. Wiley-Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Bergler, S. (1992). The evidential analysis of reported speech. Ph.D. thesis, Brandeis University.Google Scholar
  12. Boër, S. E., & Lycan, W. G. (1976). The myth of semantic presupposition. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  13. Büring D. (2005) Binding theory. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen J. (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20(1): 37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Constant N., Davis C., Potts C., Schwarz F. (2009) The pragmatics of expressive content: Evidence from large corpora. Sprache und Datenverarbeitung 33(1–2): 5–21Google Scholar
  16. F. (2005) On epithets qua attributive anaphors. Journal of Linguistics 41(1): 1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crawley M.J. (2007) The R book. West Sussex, UK, WileyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cruse D.A. (1986) Lexical semantics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Culicover P.W. (1992) English tag questions and Universal Grammar. Lingua 88(1): 21–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. de Marneffe, M.-C., Rafferty, A. N., & Manning, C. D. (2008). Finding contradictions in text. In Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics 2008 (pp. 1039–1047). Columbus, OH: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  21. Emonds J.E. (1976) A transformational approach to English syntax. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Farkas D.F. (1992) On the semantics of subjunctive complements. In: Hirschbühler P. (eds) Romance languages and linguistic theory. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 69–104Google Scholar
  23. Giannakidou A. (1999) Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 22(4): 367–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Giannakidou, A., & Stavrou, M. (2008). On metalinguistic comparatives and negation in Greek. In Greek syntax and semantics. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Linguistics.Google Scholar
  25. Godfrey, J. J., & Holliman, E. (1993). Switchboard-1 transcripts. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  26. Harris J.A. (2009) Epithets and perspective shift: Experimental evidence. In: Biezma M., Harris J.A. (eds) University of Massachussets occasional papers in linguistics: Papers in pragmatics (Vol. 39). Amherst MA, GLSA PublishingGoogle Scholar
  27. Harris, J. A., & Potts, C. (2009). Predicting perspectival orientation for appositives. In Proceedings from the 45th annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (Vol. 45). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  28. Huddleston R., Pullum G.K. (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Jaeger T.F. (2008) Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4): 447–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kaplan, D. (1999). What is meaning? Explorations in the theory of Meaning as Use. Brief version—draft 1. Ms., UCLA.Google Scholar
  31. Karttunen L. (1973) Presuppositions and compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4(2): 169–193Google Scholar
  32. Karttunen, L., & Zaenen, A. (2005). Veridicity. In G. Katz, J. Pustejovsky, & F. Schilder (Eds.), Annotating, extracting and reasoning about time and events, No. 05151 in Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings. Dagstuhl, Germany: Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum für Informatik (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany.
  33. Kuno S. (1987) Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse, and empathy. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  34. Lakoff, G. (1966). Deep and surface grammar. Ms., Harvard University.Google Scholar
  35. Lasersohn P. (2005) Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 28(6): 643–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lewis, D. (1969). Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Reprinted 2002 by Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. Lewis D. (1975) Languages and language. In: Gunderson K. (eds) Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science Vol. VII. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 3–35Google Scholar
  38. Manning, C. D. (2006). Local textual inference: It’s hard to circumscribe, but you know it when you see it—and NLP needs it. Ms., Stanford University.Google Scholar
  39. Marcus, M. P., Santorini, B., Marcinkiewicz, M. A., & Taylor, A. (1999). Treebank-3. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  40. McCawley J.D. (1982) Parentheticals and discontinuous structure. Linguistic Inquiry 13(1): 91–106Google Scholar
  41. McCawley, J. D. (1987). Some additional evidence for discontinuity. In G. J. Huck & A. E. Ojeda (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, (vol. 20: Discontinuous Constituency (pp. 185–200). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  42. McCawley J.D. (1989) Individuation in and of syntactic structures. In: Baltin M.R., Kroch A.S. (eds) Alternative conceptions of phrase structure. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 117–138Google Scholar
  43. Miltsakaki, E., Prasad, R., Joshi, A., & Webber, B. (2004). The Penn discourse TreeBank. In Proceedings of the language resources and evaluation conference. Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
  44. Oshima, D. (2006). Perspectives in reported discourse. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  45. Pollard C., Sag I.A. (1992) Anaphors in English and the scope of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23(2): 261–303Google Scholar
  46. Potts C. (2005) The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  47. Potts C. (2007) The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 165–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Potts, C. (To appear). Conventional implicature and expressive content. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner, (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  49. Potts, C., & Harris, J. A. (2009). Embedded appositives (annotated data).
  50. Potts, C., & Schwarz, F. (2008). Exclamatives and heightened emotion: Extracting pragmatic generalizations from large corpora. Ms., UMass Amherst.Google Scholar
  51. Quang P.D. (1971) English sentences without overt grammatical subject. In: Zwicky A.M., Salus P.H., Binnick R.I., Vanek A.L. (eds) Studies out in left field: Defamatory essays presented to James D. McCawley on the occasion of his 33rd or 34th birthday. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 3–10Google Scholar
  52. R Development Core Team. (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. organization R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0,
  53. Ross J.R. (1973) Slifting. In: Gross M., Halle M., Schützenberger M.-P. (eds) The formal analysis of natural languages. Mouton de Gruyter, The Hague, pp 133–169Google Scholar
  54. Sauerland U. (2007) Beyond unpluggability. Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 231–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Saurí R., Pustejovsky J. (2009) FactBank: A corpus annotated with event factuality. Language Resources and Evaluation 43(3): 227–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schlenker P. (2003) A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(1): 29–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schlenker P. (2007) Expressive presuppositions. Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 237–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Simons M. (2007) Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition. Lingua 117: 1034–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Smith C.S. (2009) Accounting for subjectivity (point of view). In: Meier R.P., Aristar-Dry H., Destruel E. (eds) Text, time, and context: Selected papers of Carlota S. Smith, studies in linguistics and philosophy Vol. 89. Springer, The Netherlands, pp 371–393Google Scholar
  60. Taylor K.A. (2007) Misplaced modification and the illusion of opacity. In: O’Rourke M., Washington C. (eds) Situating semantics: Essays on the philosophy of John Perry. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 215–250Google Scholar
  61. von Stechow, A. (2003). Binding by verbs: Tense, person and mood under attitudes. In M. Kadowaki & S. Kawahara (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd north east linguistics society meeting. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
  62. Wagner, M. (2004). Asymmetries in the syntax and prosody of verb-intial interpolated clauses in German. In S. Blaho, L. Vincent, & E. Schoorlemmer (Eds.), Proceedings of CONSOLE XII, (pp. 201–215). Leiden: The Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe.Google Scholar
  63. Wald A. (1943) Test of statistical hypotheses concerning several parameters when the number of observations is large. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 54(3): 426–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wang L., Reese B., McCready E. (2005) The projection problem of nominal appositives. Snippets 10: 13–14Google Scholar
  65. Zaenen, A., Karttunen, L., & Crouch, R. (2005). Local textual inference: Can it be defined or circumscribed? In ACL workshop on empirical modelling of semantic equivalence and entailment. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MassachusettsAmherstUSA
  2. 2.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations