Parasitic attitudes

Maier, Emar

doi:10.1007/s10988-015-9174-z

Cited by 33 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Krahmer and Muskens (1995) and Krahmer (1998) tackle this problem within a DRT framework, while Rothschild (2017) tackles it by reformulating aspects of dynamic semantics in a trivalent framework. The problems dynamic semantics faces with respect to presuppositions and anaphora across attitude reports are also well known, and there are various attempts at expanding the dynamic framework to account for the data (Heim 1992;Cumming 2007;Sudo 2014;Maier 2015). Similarly, the challenges that dynamic semantics faces in explaining presupposition projection across modalized sentences are known in the literature (Roberts 1989).…”

Section: Dynamic Semanticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Definiteness projection

Mandelkern¹,

Rothschild

2019

Nat Lang Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We argue that definite noun phrases give rise to uniqueness inferences characterized by a pattern we call definiteness projection. Definiteness projection says that the uniqueness inference of a definite projects out unless there is an indefinite antecedent in a position that filters presuppositions. We argue that definiteness projection poses a serious puzzle for e-type theories of (in)definites; on such theories, indefinites should filter existence presuppositions but not uniqueness presuppositions. We argue that definiteness projection also poses challenges for dynamic approaches, which have trouble generating uniqueness inferences and predicting some filtering behavior, though unlike the challenge for e-type theories, these challenges have mostly been noted in the literature, albeit in a piecemeal way. Our central aim, however, is not to argue for or against a particular view, but rather to formulate and motivate a generalization about definiteness which any adequate theory must account for.Matthew Mandelkern and Daniel Rothschild have contributed equally.

show abstract

Section: Dynamic Semanticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Definiteness projection

Mandelkern¹,

Rothschild

2019

Nat Lang Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The basic idea is that the interpretation of certain attitudes, such as imagine, wish and want is parasitic on a doxastic modal base (Anand 2011, Heim 1992, Maier 2015, Ninan 2008, Yanovich 2011. This property has been argued to play a role, for example, in the presupposition projection properties of the verbs in question (Heim 1992, Maier 2015. 12 Ninan does not explicitly restrict the domain of the concept as I have done here, in keeping with the formulation of the semantics of de re reports that is adopted in this paper.…”

Section: Early Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Counterfactual de se

Pearson

2018

S&P

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A somewhat shorter version, but one that is like the longer versions in that it gives an explicit statement of the formalism's syntax and model-theoretic semantics, can be found in Kamp et al (2011). For excellent discussions of a closely related formalism based on similar intuitions and with similar applications see the work of Maier, in particular (Maier (2015).…”

Section: Indefinites In Dynamic Semanticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epistemic Specificity from a Communication-Theoretic Perspective

Kamp

Bende-Farkas

2018

Journal of Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper offers a DRT-based analysis of epistemic specificity. Following Farkas (1996), we distinguish between scopal, partitive and epistemic specificity. After arguing in Section 1 that the three main variants of specificity are irreducible to each other, the paper then focuses on epistemic specificity. In the analysis of epistemically specific indefinites we distinguish between specific use and specific interpretation. Specific use is defined as a relation between (the semantic representation of) a linguistic form and (the representation of) the speaker's mental state: In the speaker's state the sentence containing the relevant indefinite corresponds to a singular proposition. Specific interpretation is in a sense a derivative notion: It characterises the representation constructed by the hearer just in case he construes an indefinite as having been used specifically by the speaker, and builds his own representation accordingly. The representation language we employ is a descendant of the original DRT-language presented in Kamp and Reyle (1993). This framework is tailor-made for the representations of attitudes of cognitive agents (for a recent discussion see Kamp (2013)); in the analysis reported in the present paper it enables us to distinguish between (i) the representation of an utterance that is derived via (standard) linguistic analysis, and (ii)-(iii) the representations that the individual discourse participants have or construct for this utterance. The key concept of the analysis is the notion of an anchored entity representation: Anchored entity representations are constituents of mental states that are causally linked, via their anchors, to the entities that they represent. In general, when a speaker uses a noun phrase to refer to an entity represented by one of her entity representations and thereby activates an entity representation in the mind of the hearer, the anchor of the hearer's representation, ERH , will often be structurally different from that of the speaker's own entity representation ERS, although normally the two representations will be coreferential. There will be a structural difference in particular when the speaker refers to the entity represented by ERS through making a specific use of an indefinite noun phrase. If the hearer takes her to have used the indefinite specifically, he will construct an entity representation ERH whose anchor links it to its referent as the entity represented by the speaker's representation ERS. Anchors of this type are called 'vicarious anchors'. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of the linguistic status of epistemic specificity. Data from English have been taken to suggest that specificity is an epiphenomenon, viz. that it need not be captured at the level of grammatical representation. But data from Romanian appear to suggest otherwise: The behaviour of Romanian indefinites marked with the Accusative preposition pe suggests that the specificity properties of these indefinites need to be marked at the level of (compositional) semantics, vi...

show abstract

Parasitic attitudes

Cited by 33 publications

References 28 publications

Definiteness projection

Definiteness projection

Counterfactual de se

Epistemic Specificity from a Communication-Theoretic Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About