Counterfactual de se

Pearson, Hazel

doi:10.3765/sp.11.2

Cited by 22 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Their experiments indicate that, in English, dream selects dedicated de se LFs, whereas believe does not. They conclude that this may be a contrast where we witness two routes to de se: in the case of English believe, de se readings always come about as a special type of de re reading (see section 2.2); in the case of English dream, de se readings are generally due to dedicated de se LFs (see also Pearson 2018). The generalization from Kutchi Gujarati can now be used to test for dedicated de se LFs in the language.…”

Section: (Based On Percus and Sauerland's 2003b Entry For Dream)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pronominal typology and the de se/de re distinction

Patel-Grosz

2019

Linguist and Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: (Based On Percus and Sauerland's 2003b Entry For Dream)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pronominal typology and the de se/de re distinction

Patel-Grosz

2019

Linguist and Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…[6] For propositional analyses, see Chomsky 1980bChomsky , 1981Manzini 1983;Bouchard 1984;Koster 1984;Borer 1989;Sag & Pollard 1991;Vanden Wyngaerd 1994;Landau 2000. For property analyses, see Thomason (1974), Chierchia (1984Chierchia ( , 1990, Dowty (1985), Percus & Sauerland (2003), von Stechow (2003, Anand (2006), Stephenson (2010), Pearson (2013Pearson ( , 2016Pearson ( , 2018).…”

Section: Exhaustive Vs Partial Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Duality of control in gerundive complements of P

Landau¹

2021

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sentences like They tricked him into believing them and They charged him with abandoning them raise interesting issues for selection and control. We show that these two sentences exemplify two distinct classes, subsuming P-gerund constructions that are formed with seven distinct prepositions: implicative vs. nonimplicative constructions. The first class displays a cluster of restrictions, both syntactic and semantic, which are absent from the second class: It resists partial control or embedded lexical subjects, and it bans object drop and movement of the P-gerund phrase. The existence of these two classes, as well as their empirical profiles, follow from Landau’s (2015) theory of control and challenge alternative approaches.

show abstract

“…Our adopting Heim's decomposition is tentative and the suggestion itself may also have been tentative. See also Anand (2007), Yanovich (2011), Ninan (2012), Kauf (2017), andPearson (2018) on the complexities of this predicate. 7 This formulation is slightly different from the formalization in insofar as Heim's formulation also computes a subjective p and a subjective not-p relative to the beliefs of the speaker, but does not embed the preference under the belief.…”

Section: The Representation Of Root Clauses and Embedded V2mentioning

confidence: 99%