Title: Distinguishing semantic components of attitude verbs via the German modifier genau
Source document: Linguistica Brunensia. 2020, vol. 68, iss. 1, pp. 23-40
Extent
23-40
-
ISSN1803-7410 (print)2336-4440 (online)
Persistent identifier (DOI): https://doi.org/10.5817/LB2020-1-3
Stable URL (handle): https://hdl.handle.net/11222.digilib/142811
Type: Article
Language
License: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International
Notice: These citations are automatically created and might not follow citation rules properly.
Abstract(s)
This paper presents novel data from German: certain attitude verbs such as wissen ('know') as well as all verbs of perception are compatible with the modifier genau ('exactly') which is usually associated with expressing precision. When modifying wissen in declarative embedding contexts, genau seems to convey that the relevant attitude holds to a specifically high degree which poses a problem for the classical semantic approach to wissen. On the traditional view, wissen is analyzed as a relation that evaluates a proposition w.r.t. a subject's belief worlds and requires that it holds in all of these worlds - i.e., it is an 'all-or-nothing' concept. Accordingly, any kind of strengthening of this relation should be impossible. Based on Lewis (1996), I will show that the modifier's semantic impact in the use described here can be explained as a manipulation of the set of possible worlds incompatible with the proposition that is known. Thus, I will argue that certain attitude verbs cannot only be sensitive to belief worlds but also to alternatives thereof.
Note
This research was supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) projects P-29240 and P-32939.
References
[1] Beltrama, Andrea. 2018. Totally between subjectivity and discourse: Exploring the pragmatic side of intensification. Journal of Semantics 35(2), pp. 219–261. | DOI 10.1093/semant/ffx021
[2] Chierchia, Gennaro. 2006. Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the logicality of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37, pp. 535–590. | DOI 10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.535
[3] Djärv, Kajsa – Zehr, Jérémy – Schwarz, Florian. 2018. Cognitive vs. emotive factives: An experimental differentiation. In: Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 21(1), pp. 367–386.
[4] Gettier, Edmund. 1963. Is justified true belief knowledge? Analysis 23, pp. 121–123. | DOI 10.1093/analys/23.6.121
[5] Geurts, Bart. 2006. Take 'five'. In: Vogeleer, Svetlana – Tasmowski, Liliane, eds. Non-definiteness and Plurality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 311–329.
[6] Goldman, Alvin. 1976. Discrimination and perceptual knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy 73, pp. 771–79. | DOI 10.2307/2025679
[7] Hintikka, Jaakko. 1969. Semantics for Propositional Attitudes. In: Davis, John Whitney – Hockney, Donald James – Wilson, W. Kent, eds. Philosophical Logic. Springer, pp. 21–45.
[8] Horn, Laurence. 1972. On the Semantic Properties of the Logical Operators in English. PhD thesis, University of California.
[9] Kadmon, Nirit – Landman, Fred. 1993. Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16(4), pp. 353–422. | DOI 10.1007/BF00985272
[10] Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(1), pp. 3–44. | DOI 10.1007/BF00351935
[11] Kiparsky, Paul – Kiparsky, Carol. 1970. Fact. In: Bierwisch, Manfred – Heidolph, Karl Heinrich, eds. Progress in Linguistics. De Gruyter, pp. 143–173.
[12] Kratzer, Angelika. 2001. Facts: Particulars or information units? Linguistics and Philosophy 25(5), pp. 655–670. | DOI 10.1023/A:1020807615085
[13] Krifka, Manfred. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25, pp. 209–257.
[14] Lahiri, Utpal. 1998. Focus and Negative Polarity in Hindi. Natural Language Semantics 6, pp. 57–123. | DOI 10.1023/A:1008211808250
[15] Langendoen, Donald – Savin, Harris. 1971. The projection problem for presuppositions. In: Fillmore, Charles – Langendoen, D. Terence, eds. Studies in Linguistic Semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 44–60.
[16] Lasersohn, Peter. 1999. Pragmatic halos. Language 3(75), pp. 522–551. | DOI 10.2307/417059
[17] Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[18] Lewis, David. 1996. Elusive knowledge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74(4), pp. 549–567. | DOI 10.1080/00048409612347521
[19] Morzycki, Marcin. 2011. Metalinguistic comparison in an alternative semantics for imprecision. Natural Language Semantics 19(1), pp. 39–86. | DOI 10.1007/s11050-010-9063-5
[20] Sauerland, Uli – Stateva, Penka. 2007. Scalar vs. epistemic vagueness: Evidence from approximators. In: Proceedings of SALT 17, pp. 228–245.
[21] Yalcin, Seth. 2007. Epistemic modals. Mind 116, pp. 983–1026. | DOI 10.1093/mind/fzm983
[2] Chierchia, Gennaro. 2006. Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the logicality of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37, pp. 535–590. | DOI 10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.535
[3] Djärv, Kajsa – Zehr, Jérémy – Schwarz, Florian. 2018. Cognitive vs. emotive factives: An experimental differentiation. In: Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 21(1), pp. 367–386.
[4] Gettier, Edmund. 1963. Is justified true belief knowledge? Analysis 23, pp. 121–123. | DOI 10.1093/analys/23.6.121
[5] Geurts, Bart. 2006. Take 'five'. In: Vogeleer, Svetlana – Tasmowski, Liliane, eds. Non-definiteness and Plurality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 311–329.
[6] Goldman, Alvin. 1976. Discrimination and perceptual knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy 73, pp. 771–79. | DOI 10.2307/2025679
[7] Hintikka, Jaakko. 1969. Semantics for Propositional Attitudes. In: Davis, John Whitney – Hockney, Donald James – Wilson, W. Kent, eds. Philosophical Logic. Springer, pp. 21–45.
[8] Horn, Laurence. 1972. On the Semantic Properties of the Logical Operators in English. PhD thesis, University of California.
[9] Kadmon, Nirit – Landman, Fred. 1993. Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16(4), pp. 353–422. | DOI 10.1007/BF00985272
[10] Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(1), pp. 3–44. | DOI 10.1007/BF00351935
[11] Kiparsky, Paul – Kiparsky, Carol. 1970. Fact. In: Bierwisch, Manfred – Heidolph, Karl Heinrich, eds. Progress in Linguistics. De Gruyter, pp. 143–173.
[12] Kratzer, Angelika. 2001. Facts: Particulars or information units? Linguistics and Philosophy 25(5), pp. 655–670. | DOI 10.1023/A:1020807615085
[13] Krifka, Manfred. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25, pp. 209–257.
[14] Lahiri, Utpal. 1998. Focus and Negative Polarity in Hindi. Natural Language Semantics 6, pp. 57–123. | DOI 10.1023/A:1008211808250
[15] Langendoen, Donald – Savin, Harris. 1971. The projection problem for presuppositions. In: Fillmore, Charles – Langendoen, D. Terence, eds. Studies in Linguistic Semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 44–60.
[16] Lasersohn, Peter. 1999. Pragmatic halos. Language 3(75), pp. 522–551. | DOI 10.2307/417059
[17] Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[18] Lewis, David. 1996. Elusive knowledge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74(4), pp. 549–567. | DOI 10.1080/00048409612347521
[19] Morzycki, Marcin. 2011. Metalinguistic comparison in an alternative semantics for imprecision. Natural Language Semantics 19(1), pp. 39–86. | DOI 10.1007/s11050-010-9063-5
[20] Sauerland, Uli – Stateva, Penka. 2007. Scalar vs. epistemic vagueness: Evidence from approximators. In: Proceedings of SALT 17, pp. 228–245.
[21] Yalcin, Seth. 2007. Epistemic modals. Mind 116, pp. 983–1026. | DOI 10.1093/mind/fzm983