DOCSLIB.ORG

Perspectives in Reported Discourse a Dissertation Submitted to the Department of Linguistics and the Committee on Graduate Studi

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Perspectives in Reported Discourse a Dissertation Submitted to the Department of Linguistics and the Committee on Graduate Studi PERSPECTIVES IN REPORTED DISCOURSE A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY David Yoshikazu Oshima August 2006 °c Copyright by David Yoshikazu Oshima 2006 All Rights Reserved ii I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. (Ivan A. Sag) Principal Adviser I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. (David I. Beaver) I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. (Paul Kiparsky) I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. (Peter Sells) Approved for the University Committee on Graduate Studies. iii Abstract This thesis addresses semantic issues regarding propositional attitudes, with an over- arching theme of how the speaker's choice of perspective (between his own and the reported agent's) manifests itself in attitude reports. I take up four dimensions of perspective: analytic, logophoric, deictic, and empathic. The analytic perspective concerns the de re and de dicto modes of attitude re- ports. I defend the \sententialist" approach to the de re/de dicto distinction over the \propositionalist" (scope-based) approach, and argue that the de dicto mode re- flects the fact that the speaker chooses descriptive terms (linguistic forms) from the reported agent's perspective. The logophoric perspective concerns the de se/non-de se opposition, which has recently attracted wide attention in the light of new cross-linguistic data. Building on the widely accepted view that the object of a de se report is a Kaplanian propositional character, I develop a solution to two problems known in the literature: (i) how to capture the relation between what the complement clause denotes and what the \original" utterance/belief represents in a generalized way, and (ii) how to properly restrict occurrences and possible interpretations of indexical expressions. The deictic and empathic perspectives concern the choice of the reference point(s) for deictic predicates (e.g., go and come) and the determination of the empathy rela- tion (`ala Kuno). First, I observe that the pragmatic meanings associated with deic- tic predicates/empathy-loaded expressions are presuppositional, and further point out that their projection pattern with respect to an attitude predicate has interesting cor- relations with the choice of the speaker's perspective. Then, I propose to treat deictic iv predicates/empathy-loaded expressions as indexicals, which refer to either the ex- ternal context of utterance or a secondary context. (In this sense, the deictic and empathic perspectives can be understood as subcomponents of the logophoric per- spective.) Towards the end of the thesis, I discuss factors that a®ect the possible or favored choice of perspective, including (i) the interaction among the subtypes of perspective (e.g., the bias for the consistency of perspective), and (ii) the implicational hierarchy of the semantic types of attitude predicates. v Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge many people for helping me during my graduate studies. First and foremost, I would like to thank my principal advisor, Ivan A. Sag, for his constant encouragement and insightful advice. Throughout my doctoral work, he continually taught me to think critically and express ideas clearly, with excellent ex- amples. He has been, and always will be, my role model as a professional researcher. I am very grateful for having an exceptional doctoral dissertation committee and wish to thank Peter Sells, David I. Beaver, and Paul Kiparsky. Discussions with them were always stimulating, helpful, and enjoyable. I also wish to thank Stanley Peters, Yoshiko Matsumoto, Mark Crimmins, and Beth Levin, for their help in the preparation of this dissertation. I would like to thank scholars who taught and inspired me as I pursued a career as a linguist: Masaru Kajita and Yasuhiko Kato for leading me to the ¯eld of linguis- tics during my undergraduate studies at Sophia University; Christopher Tancredi, Tsuneko Nakazawa, Shigeru Sakahara, Makoto Kanazawa, Takane Ito, and Shu-ichi Yatabe for their guidance during my M.A. studies at University of Tokyo; Masayoshi Shibatani, Yukinori Takubo, Elizabeth Bates, Chungmin Lee, Sun-Ah Jun, Hana Filip, Edward Flemming, Dick Crouch, Ash Asudeh, Mary Dalrymple, Tom Wasow, Nicholas Asher, and Dorit Abusch for their inspiring lectures at Stanford University and the LSA summer institutes 2001/2003. vi I cherish the time I spent with my colleagues and friends at and outside Stanford, especially Andrew Koontz-Garboden, Shin-ichi Hatakeyama, John Beavers, Yurie Hara, Bruno Estigarribia, Rebecca Greene, Itamar Francez, T. Florian Jaeger, Hee- Soo Kim, Tanya Nikitina, Yusuke Kubota, Qingmei Lee, Roger Levy, Eric McCready, Prashant Pardeshi, Yasutada Sudo, Shiao Wei Tham, Judith Tonhauser, Huihsin Tseng, Kiyoko Uchiyama, and Yuan Zhao. Conversations with them have always inspired and energized me. I extend many thanks to my friends at Stanford, especially Yuichiro Goto, Ryoji Hiraguchi, Yoji Hosoe, Shin-ichi Koseki, Sandra Okita, Alpha Yukio Shimizu, Marika Suzuki, and Masaya Suzuki. Without them to share joy and distress with, my grad- uate life at Stanford would have been very bland. I am thankful to my parents and grandparents in Japan for their support. I am especially grateful to my wife, Midori, for her constant love and support. I am truly glad we found each other. This research was partially funded by William R. and Sara Hart Kimball Stanford Graduate Fellowship. vii Contents Abstract iv Acknowledgments vi 1 Introduction 1 2 Direct and Indirect Discourse { Discrete or Continuous? 5 2.1 The two modes of reported discourse . 5 2.2 What's between the direct and indirect modes? . 10 2.2.1 Imperatives . 12 2.2.2 All-purpose indexicals . 13 2.2.3 Deictic pivot and empathy locus . 15 2.2.4 Sensation predicates . 17 2.3 Summary . 18 3 \Direct" Features in Indirect Discourse 20 3.1 De re vs. de dicto attitude reports . 22 3.2 De se vs. non-de se attitude reports . 23 3.3 Deictic reference point . 27 3.4 Empathy relation . 28 3.5 Summary and guide to the following chapters . 30 4 Analytic Perspective: De Re vs. De Dicto Attitude Reports 33 4.1 Previous analyses . 33 4.1.1 The classical scope analysis . 33 viii 4.1.2 Kaplan (1968) . 36 4.1.3 Lewis (1979) . 37 4.2 An alternative proposal . 39 4.2.1 Crimmins and Perry's (1989) model . 39 4.2.2 Modi¯cations of C&P's model . 41 4.2.3 The de re/de dicto distinction in the C&P's model . 44 4.2.4 Deictic adjustment . 46 4.2.5 Referential (in)de¯nite descriptions . 48 4.2.6 Quanti¯cational NPs . 50 4.3 Further discussion . 52 4.3.1 Is the \assent"-relation really needed? . 52 4.3.2 Exportation of a de¯nite NP . 55 4.3.3 Kripke's puzzle . 57 4.3.4 Logical truth and logical falsehood . 65 4.4 Compositional semantics . 68 5 Logophoric Perspective: De Se Attitude Reports and Shifted In- dexicals 71 5.1 Quanti¯cation over contexts . 72 5.2 Characters and indexicals MRSOAs . 74 5.3 De se vs. non-de se attitude reports . 78 5.3.1 A note on Japanese zibun .................... 78 5.3.2 Characters and contents of MRSOAs . 82 5.3.3 \Partially de se" attitude reports . 84 5.4 Compositional semantics . 87 5.4.1 Abstraction of a context variable . 87 5.4.2 Semantic derivation of partially de se attitude reports . 91 5.4.3 Restriction on free context variables . 98 6 Deictic Perspective: Motion Deixis and Presupposition Projection 108 6.1 Previous studies on deictic predicates . 109 6.1.1 Motion-toward-the-speaker vs. motion-from-the-speaker . 109 ix 6.1.2 Fillmore's person-based analysis . 111 6.2 An alternative analysis of deictic predicates . 114 6.3 A semantic analysis of deictic verbs: A ¯rst approximation . 118 6.4 \Deictic perspective shift" in reported discourse . 120 6.5 Projection of presuppositions triggered by deictic verbs and the de se/non-de se opposition with respect to motion deixis . 123 6.5.1 Primary deictic perspective and attitude predicates as holes . 123 6.5.2 Secondary deictic perspective and attitude predicates as ¯lters/plugs . 125 6.5.3 The de se/non-de se opposition with respect to motion deixis 126 6.6 Questioning the common view: Is an attitude predicate a ¯lter or a hole?127 6.7 A \truth combination"-based approach to presuppositions . 131 6.7.1 The formal setting: A quadrivalent system . 131 6.7.2 Presupposition projection . 138 6.7.3 Connectives . 140 6.7.4 Quanti¯ers . 142 6.8 Attitude predicates . 150 6.8.1 Attitude predicates as holes . 151 6.8.2 Attitude predicates as ¯lters/plugs . 153 6.8.3 Factive predicates . 157 6.8.4 Loose ends: Unwanted combinations . 162 7 Empathic Perspective: Empathy-loaded Expressions as Indexicals 165 7.1 Theory of linguistic empathy . 166 7.1.1 Empathy hierarchies . 166 7.1.2 Syntactic direction and obviation as empathy-based phenomena 172 7.1.3 Empathy and binding . 173 7.2 \Empathic perspective shift" in reported discourse .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dec 0 1 2009 Libraries
    Constraining Credences MASSACHUS TS INS E OF TECHNOLOGY by DEC 0 12009 Sarah Moss A.B., Harvard University (2002) LIBRARIES B.Phil., Oxford University (2004) Submitted to the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the ARCHIVES MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Apn1 2009 © Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2009. All rights reserved. A uthor ..... ......... ... .......................... .. ........ Department of Linguistics and Philosophy ... .. April 27, 2009 Certified by...................... ....... .. .............. ......... Robert C. Stalnaker Laure egckefeller Professor of Philosophy Thesis Supervisor Accepted by..... ......... ............ ... ' B r I Alex Byrne Professor of Philosophy Chair of the Committee on Graduate Students Constraining Credences by Sarah Moss Submitted to the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. April 27, 2009 This dissertation is about ways in which our rational credences are constrained: by norms governing our opinions about counterfactuals, by the opinions of other agents, and by our own previous opinions. In Chapter 1, I discuss ordinary language judgments about sequences of counterfactuals, and then discuss intuitions about norms governing our cre- dence in counterfactuals. I argue that in both cases, a good theory of our judg- ments calls for a static semantics on which counterfactuals have substantive truth conditions, such as the variably strict conditional semantic theories given in STALNAKER 1968 and LEWIS 1973a. In particular, I demonstrate that given plausible assumptions, norms governing our credences about objective chances entail intuitive norms governing our opinions about counterfactuals. I argue that my pragmatic accounts of our intuitions dominate semantic theories given by VON FINTEL 2001, GILLIES 2007, and EDGINGTON 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • (2012) Perspectival Discourse Referents for Indexicals* Maria
    To appear in Proceedings of SULA 7 (2012) Perspectival discourse referents for indexicals* Maria Bittner Rutgers University 0. Introduction By definition, the reference of an indexical depends on the context of utterance. For ex- ample, what proposition is expressed by saying I am hungry depends on who says this and when. Since Kaplan (1978), context dependence has been analyzed in terms of two parameters: an utterance context, which determines the reference of indexicals, and a formally unrelated assignment function, which determines the reference of anaphors (rep- resented as variables). This STATIC VIEW of indexicals, as pure context dependence, is still widely accepted. With varying details, it is implemented by current theories of indexicali- ty not only in static frameworks, which ignore context change (e.g. Schlenker 2003, Anand and Nevins 2004), but also in the otherwise dynamic framework of DRT. In DRT, context change is only relevant for anaphors, which refer to current values of variables. In contrast, indexicals refer to static contextual anchors (see Kamp 1985, Zeevat 1999). This SEMI-STATIC VIEW reconstructs the traditional indexical-anaphor dichotomy in DRT. An alternative DYNAMIC VIEW of indexicality is implicit in the ‘commonplace ef- fect’ of Stalnaker (1978) and is formally explicated in Bittner (2007, 2011). The basic idea is that indexical reference is a species of discourse reference, just like anaphora. In particular, both varieties of discourse reference involve not only context dependence, but also context change. The act of speaking up focuses attention and thereby makes this very speech event available for discourse reference by indexicals. Mentioning something likewise focuses attention, making the mentioned entity available for subsequent dis- course reference by anaphors.
    [Show full text]
  • Pronominal Typology & the De Se/De Re Distinction
    Pronominal Typology & the de se/de re distinction Pritty Patel-Grosz 1. Introduction This paper investigates how regular pronominal typology interfaces with de se and de re interpretations, and highlights a correlation between strong pronouns (descriptively speaking) and de re interpretations, and weak pronouns and de se interpretations. In order to illustrate this correlation, I contrast different pronominal forms within a single language, null vs. overt pronouns in Kutchi Gujarati, and clitic vs. full pronouns in Austrian Bavarian. I argue that the data presented here provide cross-linguistic comparative support for the idea of a dedicated de se LF as argued for by Percus & Sauerland. The empirical findings in this paper reveal a new observation regarding pronominal typology, namely that stronger pronouns resist a de se construal. Contrastively, the “weaker” a pronoun is (in comparison to other pronouns in the same language), the more likely it is to be interpreted de se. To analyse this, I propose that pronominal strength correlates with structural complexity (in terms of Cardinaletti & Starke 1999), i.e. overt pronouns have more syntactic structure than null pronouns; similarly, non-clitic pronouns have more structure than clitic pronouns. The correlation between de se readings and weakness follows from an analysis in the spirit of Percus & Sauerland (2003a,b), which assumes that de se pronouns are uninterpreted and merely serve to trigger predicate abstraction. Stronger pronouns, which have more structure, can be taken to simply resist being uninterpreted, given that the null hypothesis is that the additional structure has some effect or other on the semantics of the pronoun.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Core French Grammar
    Understanding Core French Grammar Andrew Betts Lancing College, England Vernon Series in Language and Linguistics Copyright © 2016 Vernon Press, an imprint of Vernon Art and Science Inc, on behalf of the author. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Vernon Art and Ascience Inc. www.vernonpress.com In the Americas: In the rest of the world: Vernon Press Vernon Press 1000 N West Street, C/Sancti Espiritu 17, Suite 1200, Wilmington, Malaga, 29006 Delaware 19801 Spain United States Vernon Series in Language and Linguistics Library of Congress Control Number: 2016947126 ISBN: 978-1-62273-068-1 Product and company names mentioned in this work are the trademarks of their respec- tive owners. While every care has been taken in preparing this work, neither the authors nor Vernon Art and Science Inc. may be held responsible for any loss or damage caused or alleged to be caused directly or indirectly by the information contained in it. Table of Contents Acknowledgements xi Introduction xiii Chapter 1 Tense Formation 15 1.0 Tenses – Summary 15 1.1 Simple (One-Word) Tenses: 15 1.2 Compound (Two-word) Tenses: 17 2.0 Present Tense 18 2.1 Regular Verbs 18 2.2 Irregular verbs 19 2.3 Difficulties with the Present Tense 19 3.0 Imperfect Tense 20 4.0 Future Tense and Conditional Tense 21 5.0 Perfect Tense 24 6.0 Compound Tense Past Participle Agreement 28 6.1
    [Show full text]
  • Berkeley Linguistics Society
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTY-SECOND ANNUAL MEETING OF THE BERKELEY LINGUISTICS SOCIETY February 10-12, 2006 GENERAL SESSION and PARASESSION on THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO ARGUMENT STRUCTURE Edited by Zhenya Antić Michael J. Houser Charles B. Chang Clare S. Sandy Emily Cibelli Maziar Toosarvandani Jisup Hong Yao Yao Berkeley Linguistics Society Berkeley, CA, USA Berkeley Linguistics Society University of California, Berkeley Department of Linguistics 1203 Dwinelle Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-2650 USA All papers copyright © 2012 by the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Inc. All rights reserved. ISSN 0363-2946 LCCN 76-640143 Printed by Sheridan Books 100 N. Staebler Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS A note regarding the contents of this volume ........................................................ vi Foreword ............................................................................................................... vii GENERAL SESSION Verb Second, Subject Clitics, and Impersonals in Surmiran (Rumantsch) .............3 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON Cross-linguistic Variation in a Processing Account: The Case of Multiple Wh-questions ..........................................................................................................23 INBAL ARNON, NEIL SNIDER, PHILIP HOFMEISTER, T. FLORIAN JAEGER, and IVAN A. SAG Several Problems for Predicate Decompositions ...................................................37 JOHN BEAVERS and ITAMAR FRANCEZ Wh-Conditionals in Vietnamese and Chinese: Against Unselective Binding .......49 BENJAMIN BRUENING
    [Show full text]
  • Xxth-Century Theories of Language: an Epistemological Diagnosis
    Pierre Swiggers CDU 801 11 19 11 Belgian National Science Foundation XXTH-CENTURY THEORIES OF LANGUAGE: AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL DIAGNOSIS O. Introduction. This article is intended as a study in the methodology and epistemology of linguist­ ics, a field which developed out of theoretical linguistics in the past thirty years. Meth­ odology and epistemology (or philosophy)1 of linguistics can be subsumed under the general domain of 11 philosophical linguistics 11 (cfr. Kasher - Lappin 1977), which also includes a theory of meaning and reference, a theory of linguistic ( or, more generally semiotic) communication, and - in some cases - a formalization of linguistic subsys­ tems. The specific contribution of methodology and epistemology of linguistics lies in the definition of the object of linguistics, in the determination and justification of its re­ search techniques, in the appreciation of its results with respect to a broader field of in­ vestigation, in the reflection on the nature, status, and variability of approaches to lan­ guage. 2 The history of general linguistics (which is still an ill-defined concept) since the 11 11 11 11 beginning of this century shows that the basic notions - such as language , grammar , 11 11 11 11 (linguistic) meaning , (linguistic) structure - underwent a radical change in inten­ sion and extension, and have been focused upon from different points of view, in varie­ gated perspectives (cfr. Swiggers 1989). It would be presumptuous to analyse the vari­ ous 11 transformations of linguistics113 in this article; our aim here isto offer some ge- I am taking epistemology here in its "correlative" acceptation (viz. "epistemology of -"; cfr.
    [Show full text]
  • Analyticity, Necessity and Belief Aspects of Two-Dimensional Semantics
    !"# #$%"" &'( ( )#"% * +, %- ( * %. ( %/* %0 * ( +, %. % +, % %0 ( 1 2 % ( %/ %+ ( ( %/ ( %/ ( ( 1 ( ( ( % "# 344%%4 253333 #6#787 /0.' 9'# 86' 8" /0.' 9'# 86' (#"8'# Analyticity, Necessity and Belief Aspects of two-dimensional semantics Eric Johannesson c Eric Johannesson, Stockholm 2017 ISBN print 978-91-7649-776-0 ISBN PDF 978-91-7649-777-7 Printed by Universitetsservice US-AB, Stockholm 2017 Distributor: Department of Philosophy, Stockholm University Cover photo: the water at Petite Terre, Guadeloupe 2016 Contents Acknowledgments v 1 Introduction 1 2 Modal logic 7 2.1Introduction.......................... 7 2.2Basicmodallogic....................... 13 2.3Non-denotingterms..................... 21 2.4Chaptersummary...................... 23 3 Two-dimensionalism 25 3.1Introduction.......................... 25 3.2Basictemporallogic..................... 27 3.3 Adding the now operator.................. 29 3.4Addingtheactualityoperator................ 32 3.5 Descriptivism ......................... 34 3.6Theanalytic/syntheticdistinction............. 40 3.7 Descriptivist 2D-semantics .................. 42 3.8 Causal descriptivism ..................... 49 3.9Meta-semantictwo-dimensionalism............. 50 3.10Epistemictwo-dimensionalism................ 54
    [Show full text]
  • (MOO) As a High School Procedure for Foreign Language Acquisition James A
    Nova Southeastern University NSUWorks CEC Theses and Dissertations College of Engineering and Computing 1999 Multi-User Domain Object Oriented (MOO) as a High School Procedure for Foreign Language Acquisition James A. Backer Nova Southeastern University, [email protected] This document is a product of extensive research conducted at the Nova Southeastern University College of Engineering and Computing. For more information on research and degree programs at the NSU College of Engineering and Computing, please click here. Follow this and additional works at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/gscis_etd Part of the Computer Sciences Commons Share Feedback About This Item NSUWorks Citation James A. Backer. 1999. Multi-User Domain Object Oriented (MOO) as a High School Procedure for Foreign Language Acquisition. Doctoral dissertation. Nova Southeastern University. Retrieved from NSUWorks, Graduate School of Computer and Information Sciences. (396) https://nsuworks.nova.edu/gscis_etd/396. This Dissertation is brought to you by the College of Engineering and Computing at NSUWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in CEC Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of NSUWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Multi-User Domain Object Oriented (MOO) as a High School Procedure for Foreign Language Acquisition by James A. Backer A Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Doctoral Program in Computer Technology in Education School of Computer and Information Sciences Nova Southeastern University 1999 We hereby certify that this dissertation, submitted by James A. Backer, conforms to acceptable standards and is fully adequate in scope and quality to fulfill the dissertation requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Trevor Kann Curriculum Vitae 1 [email protected]
    Trevor Kann Curriculum Vitae 1 [email protected] EDUCATION UCLA, Los Angeles, California • PhD in Applied Linguistics 2017 Graduate GPA: 3.92/4.00. Dissertation Title: Measuring Linguistic Empathy: An Experimental Approach to Connecting Linguistic and Social Psychological Notions of Empathy Committee: Olga Yokoyama (chair), Eran Zaidel, Jesse Harris, John Schumann • C.Phil in Applied Linguistics 2015 Advanced to Candidacy for a successful defense of dissertation prospectus. • MA in Applied Linguistics & TESL 2010 Thesis Title: The Prosodical Son: Music's Influence on the Evolution of Language Committee: John Schumann (chair), Charles Goodwin, Fred Erickson • BA in Linguistics, Portuguese Minor 2004 Undergraduate GPA: 3.42/4.00 TEACHING POSITIONS Lecturer and Instructor, UCLA 2009 - 2019 Lecturer for Linguistics and Applied Linguistics courses since 2017, sole instructor for classes in Linguistics, Applied Linguistics, and ESL since 2009. Designed syllabi, created materials, and selected course readings. Facilitated in-class and online discussions to expand upon these ideas and held regular office hours. Graded weekly assignments and student essays/research papers. Enrollment has ranged from 15 to 88 students per lecture, over 500 students total. Managed, observed, and mentored up to four TAs per course. Linguistics Courses • Ling 170: Language and Society: Introduction to Sociolinguistics • Ling 144: Fundamentals in Translation and Interpreting • Ling 11: Language in Action: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics • Ling 9W1: Linguistic Humor:
    [Show full text]
  • What Is the Problem of De Se Attitudes?∗
    Penultimate draft. Forthcoming in About Oneself: De Se Attitudes and Communication, M. Garcia-Carpintero and S. Torre (eds.), Oxford University Press. What is the Problem of De Se Attitudes?∗ Dilip Ninan [email protected] 1 Introduction 1.1 Skepticism and exceptionalism It is widely thought that de se attitudes (aka indexical or self-locating atti- tudes) are special in some way, and that their distinctive features require some alteration to (once) standard philosophical views about propositional attitudes. This sort of claim was first made in contemporary philosophy in the 1960s and 1970s by, among others, Casta~neda,Perry, and Lewis.1 This work has proven influential, and the idea that de se attitudes pose a challenge to theories of attitudes is now the received view. But despite widespread agreement that there is a problem of de se attitudes (`the problem of the essential indexical' to use Perry's term), the literature on these topics has been less than completely clear on just what that problem is supposed to be. More specifically, what is unclear is what the distinctive problem of de se attitudes is, what problem such attitudes raise over and above other more familiar problems facing theories of propositional attitudes (e.g. Frege's Puzzle). Of course, one reason it might be difficult to unearth a distinctive problem in this vicinity is that, contra the received view, there simply is no distinctive problem of de se attitudes. This is the view of the de se skeptic, the philosopher who flouts the Perry-Lewis orthodoxy and holds that any problem raised by de se attitudes is really just instance of a more general problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Binding, Compositionality, and Semantic Values
    volume 19, no. 2 I. Introduction: the plan1 january 2020 Assume that propositions — things that are or determine functions from possible worlds to truth-values — are the objects of the attitudes, the possessors of modal properties like being possible or necessary, the things we assert by uttering sentences in contexts, and perhaps more. Suppose we have a compositional semantics that assigns se- mantic values relative to contexts to the well-formed expressions of Binding, Compositionality, a natural language.2 What is the relation between the proposition ex- pressed by a sentence in a context and the semantic value assigned to the sentence in that context? Surely the simplest view, and so the one we should prefer, other things being equal, is that the relation is and Semantic Values identity: the proposition expressed by a sentence in a context just is the semantic value of that sentence in that context. We’ll call this the clas- sical picture. Lewis [1980] claimed that the proper semantics for certain expressions precluded identifying the compositional semantic values of sentences relative to contexts with propositions as the classical pic- ture does. King [2003, 2007] and Glanzberg [2011] argued that Lewis’s argument ultimately fails and that the classical picture can be upheld. Call this exchange the old debate. It is worth noting that the dialectic of 1. Thanks to Chris Barker, Ezra Cook, Josh Dever, Geoff Georgi, Hans Kamp, Peter Pagin, Bryan Pickel, Brian Rabern, Anders Schoubye, Dag Westerståhl, Malte Willer, Seth Yalcin, Juhani Yli-Vakkuri, Zoltán Szabó, and two anony- Michael Glanzberg & Jeffrey C.
    [Show full text]
  • The Secret Life of Slurs from the Perspective of Reported Speech
    RIFL (2015) 2: 92-112 DOI 10.4396/201512204 __________________________________________________________________________________ The secret life of slurs from the perspective of reported speech Mohammad Ali Salmani Nodoushan Iranian Institute for Encyclopedia Research [email protected] Abstract Research on reported speech is old, but scholars working in this field are inclined to see its roots in Davidson’s (1968) paratactic account of indirect reports. Although Davidson aimed at a ‘truth-conditional’ theory of indirect reports which could challenge ideational, use, and psychological theories, his paratactic view – of which the backbone was the notion of ‘samesaying’ – motivated a good number of scholars to search for adequate accounts of indirect reports in truth-conditional semantics. Ever since then, research on reported speech gathered size and momentum, and resulted in a wealth of knowledge – which has, in turn, made it hard for people not versed in the field to fully appreciate it. This paper brings scholarly literature on reported speech to bear on slurs and reveals their secret life by dissecting them in the light of reported speech. Keywords: reported speech, truth-conditional theories, pragmemes, language games, Slurs, paraphrasis-form principle, paraphrasis/quotation principle 0. Introduction For a lay person with a limited knowledge of grammar, a structural account of reported speech would adequately describe how indirect reports could be derived from direct reports and vice versa; it would suffice to (a) adjust the plug (i.e., the ‘verb’ of reporting), (b) use ‘that’ to introduce indirect speech, and (b) adjust the context-sensitive structural items of indirect speech (e.g., grammatical person of pronouns, demonstrative elements, locative and temporal phrases, tense, and so on).
    [Show full text]