Intensional verbs and their intentional objects
- 232 Downloads
The complement of transitive intensional verbs, like any nonreferential complement, can be replaced by a ‘special quantifier’ or ‘special pronoun’ such as something, the same thing, or what. In previous work on predicative complements and that-clauses I argued that special quantifiers and pronouns introduce entities that would not have occurred in the semantic structure of the sentence without the special quantifier, entities that one would refer to with the corresponding nominalization. Thus something in John thinks something or the same thing in John thinks the same thing as Mary ranges not over propositions, but rather over entities of the sort ‘John’s thought that S’ or ‘the thought that S’, without those entities acting as arguments of the think-relation. Despite initial apparent lack of evidence for this view for transitive verbs like need, a closer inspection of a greater range of data gives in fact further support for the ‘Nominalization Theory’ of special quantifiers, once ‘nominalization’ is viewed in a suitably extended and flexible way.
KeywordsTransitive intensional verbs Intensional quantifiers Modality Situation Intensionality
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bennett M. (1977). A guide to the logic of tense and aspect in English. Logique et Analyse 20: 491–517 Google Scholar
- Carlson, G. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
- Forbes, G. 2004. Intensional transitive verbs. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2004 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2004/entries/intensional-trans-verbs/.
- Forbes G. (2006). Attitude problems. Oxford University Press, Oxford Google Scholar
- Higgins, R. 1973. The pseudocleft construction in English. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
- Larson, R., M. Den Dikken, and P. Ludlow 1997. Intensional transitive and abstract clausal complements. Ms., SUNY at Stony Brook and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- Montague, R. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in English. In Approaches to natural language, ed. J. Hintikka et al., 242–270. Dordrecht: Reidel. Also in R. Montague, Formal philosophy, ed. by R. Thomason. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Richard, M. 2001. Seeking a centaur, adoring Adonis: intensional transitives and empty terms. In Figurative language. Midwest studies in philosophy, vol. 25, ed. P. French and H. Wettstein, 103–127. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Zalta E. (1983). Abstract objects. An introduction to axiomatic metaphysics. Reidel, Dordrecht Google Scholar
- Zimmermann E. (2001). Unspecificity and intensionality. In: Féry, C. and Sternefeld, W. (eds) Audiatur vox sapientae, pp 514–532. Akademie Verlag, Berlin Google Scholar