Advertisement

Reasoning with an (Experiential) Attitude

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12331)

Abstract

This paper gives a compositional semantics for attitude reports with nominal, gerund, and that-clause complements that captures the intuitive entailment relations between these reports (e.g. Ida sees/imagines a penguin diving \(\Rightarrow \) Ida sees/imagines a penguin). These relations are identified through the familiar diagnostic tests. We observe that entailments that are licensed by counterfactual attitude verbs (here: imagine) are largely different from the entailments between veridical vision reports that are described in (Barwise 1981). To capture this difference, we give a non-clausal syntax for gerund attitude reports and assign factive clausal complements a different semantics from non-factive and gerund complements. The resulting account captures the entailment patterns of imagination and vision reports without assuming special axioms in the lexical semantics of see or imagine. On our account, the ‘logic’ of the above reports thus falls directly out of their semantics.

Keywords

Perception reports Imagination reports Selectional flexibility Entailment patterns Predication theory Situation semantics 

References

  1. 1.
    Anand, P.: Suppositional projects and subjectivity. In: Michigan Linguistics and Philosophy Workshop, pp. 1–22 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asher, N., Bonevac, D.: How extensional is extensional perception? Linguist. Philos. 8(2), 203–228 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barwise, J.: Scenes and other situations. J. Philos. 78(7), 369–397 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barwise, J., Perry, J.: Situations and Attitudes. MIT Press, Cambridge (1983)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beaver, D., Geurts, B.: Presupposition, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Summer. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) 2011 edn. (2011). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/presupposition
  6. 6.
    Blome-Tillmann, M.: Conversational implicatures (and how to spot them). Philos. Compass 80(2), 170–185 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cresswell, M.J., von Stechow, A.: De re belief generalized. Linguist. Philos. 5(4), 503–35 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    van der Does, J.: A generalized quantifier logic for naked infinitives. Linguist. Philos. 14(3), 241–294 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Detske, F.: Seeing and knowing. Mind 79, 281–287 (1970)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fine, K.: Properties, propositions, and sets. J. Philos. Logic 6, 135–191 (1977)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    von Fintel, K.: Quantifier domain selection and pseudo-scope. In: Handout from a Talk at the Cornell Conference on Theories of Context Dependency (1999). http://mit.edu/fintel/fintel-1999-cornell-context.pdf
  12. 12.
    Forbes, G.: Attitude Problems: An Essay on Linguistic Intensionality. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grzankowski, A.: Limits of propositionalism. Inquiry 57(7-8), 819–838 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grice, H.P.: Logic and conversation. In: Cole, P., Morgan, J.L. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts, pp. 41–58. Academic Press, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heim, I., Kratzer, A.: Semantics in Generative Grammar, Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics, vol. 13. Blackwell, Malden and Oxford (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Higginbotham, J.: The logic of perceptual reports: an extensional alternative to situation semantics. J. Philos. 80(2), 100–127 (1985)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Higginbotham, J.: Remembering, imagining, and the first person. In: Barber, A. (ed.) Epistemology of Language, pp. 496–533. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hintikka, J.: Semantics for propositional attitudes. In: Davis, J.W., et al. (eds.) Philosophical Logic, pp. 21–45. Reidel, Dordrecht (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Horn, L.R.: On the Semantic Properties of the Logical Operators in English. Chicago University Press, Chicago (1972)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kaplan, D.: Quantifying in. Synthese 19(1–2), 178–214 (1969)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kiparsky, P., Kiparsky, C.: Fact. In: Bierwisch, M., Heidolph, K.E. (eds.) Progress in Linguistics: A Collection of Papers, pp. 143–73. Mouton, The Hague (1970)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kratzer, A.: Facts: particulars or information units? Linguist. Philos. 25(5-6), 655–670 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kratzer, A.: Decomposing attitude verbs. Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Handout (2006). https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DcwY2JkM/attitude-verbs2006.pdf
  24. 24.
    Kratzer, A.: Situations in natural language. In: Zalta, E.N., (ed.) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Summer 2019 (edn) (2019). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/situations-semantics/
  25. 25.
    Lewis, D.: Attitudes de dicto and de se. Phil. Rev. 88(4), 513–543 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liefke, K.: A single-type semantics for natural language. Dissertation, Tilburg Center for Logic and Philosophy of Science, Tilburg (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liefke, K.: Saving Hamlet ellipsis. In: Loukanova, R. (ed.) Logic and Algorithms in Computational Linguistics 2018 (LACompLing2018). SCI, vol. 860, pp. 17–43. Springer, Cham (2020).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30077-7_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Liefke, K., Werning, M.: Evidence for single-type semantics - an alternative to e/t-based dual-type semantics. J. Semant. 35(4), 639–685 (2018)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lundin, K.: Small clauses in Swedish: towards a unified account. Dissertation, Lund University, Lund (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Moltmann, F.: Intensional verbs and quantifiers. Nat. Lang. Sem. 5(1), 1–52 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Montague, R.: On the nature of certain philosophical entities. The Monist 41, 159–194 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Montague, R.: Universal grammar. Theoría 36(3), 373–398 (1970)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Montague, R.: The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In: Hintikka, J. (ed.) Approaches to Natural Language, pp. 221–242. Reidel, Dordrecht (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Niiniluoto, I.: Imagination and fiction. J. Semant. 4(3), 209–222 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Parsons, T.: Meaning sensitivity and grammatical structure. In: Chiara, M.L.D., Doets, K., Mundici, D., Van Benthem, J. (eds.) Structures and Norms in Science. SYLI, vol. 260. Springer, Dordrecht (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0538-7_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Peacocke, C.: Implicit conceptions, understanding and rationality. Philos. Issues 9, 43–88 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Quine, W.V.: Quantifiers and propositional attitudes. J. Philos. 53(5), 177–187 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rothstein, S.: The Syntactic Forms of Predication. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge (1983)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schein, B.: Small clauses and predication. Syntax Semant. 28, 49–76 (1995)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schlenker, P.: Be articulate: a pragmatic theory of presupposition projection. Theoret. Linguist. 34, 157–212 (2008)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stephenson, T.: Vivid attitudes: centered situations in the semantics of ‘remember’ and ‘imagine’. In: Proceedings of SALT XX, pp. 147–160 (2010)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Szabó, Z.G.: Specific, yet opaque. In: Aloni, M., Bastiaanse, H., de Jager, T., Schulz, K. (eds.) Logic, Language and Meaning. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6042, pp. 32–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14287-1_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Theiler, N., Roelofsen, F., Aloni, M.: A uniform semantics for declarative and interrogative complements. J. Semant. 35(3), 409–466 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Umbach, C., Hinterwimmer, S., Gust, H.: German ‘wie’-complements: Manners, methods and events in progress. Forthcoming in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. http://www.carla-umbach.de/publications/UmbachHinterwimmerGust_wie-complements.Dec2019.draft.pdf
  45. 45.
    Williams, E.S.: Against small clauses. Linguist. Inquiry 14(2), 287–308 (1983)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zimmermann, T.E.: Unspecificity and intensionality. In: Féry, C., Sternefeld, W. (eds.) Audiatur Vox Sapentiae, pp. 524–543. Akademie Verlag, Berlin (2001)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zimmermann, T.E.: Painting and opacity. In: Freitag, W., Rott, H., Sturm, H., Zinke, A. (eds.) Von Rang und Namen, pp. 427–453. Mentis, Münster (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for LinguisticsGoethe University FrankfurtFrankfurt am MainGermany

Personalised recommendations