& Volume 14, Article 6, 2021 https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.14.6

This is an early access version of

White, Aaron Steven. 2021. On believing and hoping whether. Semantics and Pragmatics 14(6). https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.14.6.

This version will be replaced with the final typeset version in due course. Note that page numbers will change, so cite with caution.

©2021 Aaron Steven White This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/). early access

On believing and hoping whether*

Aaron Steven White University of Rochester

Abstract Theories of clause selection that aim to explain the distribution of in- terrogative and declarative complement clauses often take as a starting point that predicates like think, believe, hope, and fear are incompatible with complements. After discussing experimental evidence against the generalizations on which these theories rest, I give corpus evidence that even the core data are faulty: think, believe, hope, and fear are in fact compatible with interrogative complements, suggesting that any theory predicting that they should not be must be jettisoned.

Keywords: clause embedding, selection, interrogative, veridical, neg-raising, preferential

1 Introduction

Some of the most well-developed theories of clause selection aim to explain the distribution of embedded interrogative and declarative clauses—specifically, which lexical properties condition whether a predicate takes interrogative and/or declarative clausal complements (Hintikka 1975, Karttunen 1977a, Zuber 1982, Berman 1991, Ginzburg 1995, Lahiri 2002, Egré 2008, George 2011, Uegaki 2015, Theiler et al. 2017, 2019, Elliott et al. 2017, White & Rawlins 2018a, Roberts 2019; but see Mayr 2018). Following Grimshaw 1979, a canonical contrast in this literature is that between predicates like think, believe, hope, and fear—which are often judged worse with interrogative complements than with declaratives (1a) out of context—and know—which is often judged fine with both (1b).

(1) a. Jo {thinks, believes, hopes, fears} (*whether) Bo left. b. Jo knows (whether) Bo left.

This contrast is often taken to imply that know is compatible with both declara- tive and interrogative complements—i.e. know is a responsive predicate (Lahiri

* I am grateful to Judith Tonhauser as well as two anonymous reviewers for their extensive comments on this paper. I am also grateful to Kyle Rawlins for discussion of the work presented in §3.1; to Hannah An for discussion of the work presented in §3.2; and to Will Gantt and Ben Kane for general discussion of the paper. All of the data and code used for this paper can be found at megaattitude.io. This work was supported by National Science Foundation grant BCS-1748969 The MegaAttitude Project: Investigating selection and polysemy at the scale of the lexicon.

1 early access 1 Think ihu hs aata hysol ejtioe altogether. jettisoned be should they that data these without ads tsol ersosv codn to according responsive be should it so (3)—and that infers one (2b), t h responsivity the to (1) in contrast the from licensed is inference the as insofar Thus, t h nioaiiyof antirogativity the to (1) in contrast the English from the of inference swath the broad even a lexicon; across evaluated when nonviable derivations) their three discuss I derive. to §2. attempt in then proposals authors influential that generalizations various for sis are they complements—i.e. 2002)—while esn icse eo,Iaodadfiiini em fetimn,wihwudipyapoet of type. property predicate a some of imply token would a which containing entailment, sentences of of terms uses in possible definition all a avoid predicate I a below, that discussed definition: reasons common more a with consistent Interpreting predicates. those for correct are of left. Bo left. Bo believes} {thinks, Jo (3) a. (2) to according responsive be not should they V generalization proposes (2008) Egré generalizations Proposed 2 as (1) in contrast the jettison must version constrained genres, such evidence. of any supporting variety that a §4 from in drawn examples suggest corpus savedI be Using might them. This generalizations constraining proposed datasets. further the existing by that on possibility based the second open a leaves against evidence evidence further present frail then so and left are generalizations the generalizations, these of all forms for antirogativity data (purported) predicates’ core these the because argue, I And, landscape. believe know h i fti ae st hwta,ntol r hs eeaiain adthus (and generalizations these are only not that, show to is paper this of aim The rtrve ro xeietleiec gis n fteepooasi §3 in proposals these of one against evidence experimental prior review first I and , hope n h nioaiiyof antirogativity the and J nw oleft. Bo knows Jo b. veridical. is it iff responsive is predicate A predicate believe and , from WHERE think fear r o veridical—from not are as PVS V NP , rdct type predicate believe predicate a sulcne ae na seseto h rae empirical broader the of assessment an on based unlicensed is that , nioaiepredicates antirogative hope S . and 1 think V and , is V , veridical . believe fear 2 (2a) V as ncontrast, In . r optbewt nydeclarative only with compatible are etnetype sentence , adso (3)—and that infer not does one , hope nasentence a in V and , hsifrnefrsteba- the forms inference This . is veridical hsdfiiino eiiaiyis of definition this , fear know h rdcin of predictions the , PVS V NP iff sveridical—from is PVS V NP V f n infers one iff . entails think S White For . V , early access , P if NR . + fear VS V fear and not , and and NP —and so they hope NR , hope V (4b) took the form of a are correct for those are standardly assumed NR NR S in sentence fear not iff in the of the . , or nonpreferential predicates, P and , one can infer + NPV know . V to be responsive, thereby conflicting (4a) in the definitions of hope that : NR fear 3 preferential VS NR neg(ation)-raising , the predictions of is and sentence not is V V . NP and P hope believe + V and takes the form of a conditional—rather than a biconditional, predicate a predicate a predicate . think NR are also neg-raising—from takes the form of a conditional: it predicts nothing about the distri- are not veridical—from (5), one does not infer (3)—but they are P believe WHERE WHERE predicate has a truth conditional effect. one can infer from + fear believe V and , A predicate is antirogative if it is nonveridical and preferential A predicate is antirogative if it is neg-raising. b. Jo {thinks, believes} Bo didn’t leave. —it predicts nothing about the distributional properties of non-neg-raising and and NR V P think In what follows, I assume what I take to be the most charitable possible inter- In an attempt to extend Theiler et al. ’s proposal to predicates like Theiler et(2017, al. 2019), following Zuber(1982), propose generalization + like pretation of each generalization: thatuses each of concerns any inferences particular drawn sense oninterpretation of particular is a strictly predicate weaker that than falls thethis under one form—wherein the commonly (i) assigned generalization. to This generalizations of complements according to Like butional properties of veridical predicates, like V preferential (see Uegaki & Sudo’s Ex. 11), and so they should not take(5) interrogative Jo {hopes, fears} Bo left. biconditional, it would predict Uegaki & Sudo(2019) propose generalization like predicates. Thus, insofar asthe antirogativity the of inference ispredicates. licensed This from outcome the is contrast positiveto for in be(1) non-neg-raisingto (see Uegaki & Sudo 2019), but if should not take according to Importantly, since NR On believing and hoping whether (4) a. Jo doesn’t {think, believe} Bo left. Hope with the inference from the contrast in (1) to the antirogativity of with similar consequences. Think early access 2 ,like 1998), hsapoc sueu,ntol eas oneeape otewa interpretation weak the to counterexamples because only not useful, is approach This hyage(hi otoe1)ta hscmaiiiyi nypsil hnteneg- the when possible only is compatibility this that 11) Footnote (their argue They generalization their save to al. et Theiler by invoked explicitly is interpretation This ievra,btas eas tcnb adt i onwehrtesrn version strong the whether down pin to hard be can it because also but versa), vice ftegnrlzto ie napriua ae sitne ntefis lc.This place. first the in intended is paper particular a in given generalization not the (but of interpretation (strong) common more the property. to the have counterexamples type always relevant are the of sentences in neg-raising, predicate or the veridicality of as uses such relevant property, all inferential if an with associated are types as interpreted are .Bti the if But include 2014). to (Wurmbrand V modified definition—especially infinitives were Sudo ’s of preferentiality & classification of Uegaki the definition about under why proposals preferential unclear current similarly is following the be it if not preferentiality, carve-outs: should are predicate-specific to unmotivated complement context rise requires some gives it in because complement (sense) stipulation infinitival predicate a move a this of call uses I particular that be must Zwarts it NPIs; work, (strong to items polarity negative inference strong neg-raising that a fact of the lack from the comes for (6) Evidence in triggered. not is ages)! inference (*in raising called who believe won’t You (6) complement. interrogative an with compatible be to wherein inferences—appears (6), likeraising examples of face the in as such generalization, polysemy. a regular under of fall rule might a predicate via that related of plausibly sense is than any that rather if one predicate it—even them, a under under of falls fall holds generalization senses the whatever that to assuming specific as the generalizations from these comes preferentiality that that complement. complements—and infinitival finite with up shows that responsive, yet that criterion stipulate of Sudo ’s predictions & the Uegaki to under counter arguments preferential other and contrast, instance, nonveridical In For is constant. 2015). remaining Egré senses & veridical on Spector rely the also only (see that responsive nonveridical—and is that one sense argues and explicitly veridical Egré senses—one least at distinct to instance, invoked For is sense generalization. predicate a Generally, save senses. multiple potentially has predicate contexts. two in up shows + P eod eas tlatngriigifrne r eesbe rdct sense predicate a defeasible, are inferences neg-raising least at because Second, a when generalizations lexical interpret to how clear always not is it First, since , decide nages in say snneiia u responsive. but nonveridical is nyhsasnl opeeeta es—rsmby h aeone same the sense—presumably, nonpreferential single a has only rdct type predicate .Frti move this For 2007). (Gajewski complement the in occur cannot , 2 nlgto hs taeis tsesraoal ointerpret to reasonable seems it strategies, these of light In V + and P osave To . etnetype sentence 4 NR believe nyi otxsweei striggered. is it where contexts in only , decide V + say apeiaeta a rge neg- trigger can that predicate —a P epciey n i)predicate (ii) and respectively; , twudcet oneeapeto counterexample a create would it , aefre to forced are Sudo & Uegaki , iha nntvlcomplement infinitival an with decide iha infinitival an with tell a two has White early access —but to NR ) is distributed seems required. and V , such a move would NR believe just discussed, the explanation for veridical responsive in this section. I first discuss existing P + and NR V 5 and , and V are judged imply antirogativity. Assuming that, in §3.1. I then turn to a new analysis that provides NR , for which (6) is a counterexample. , V V fear V V , and in §3.2. Because all three measures are continuous in nature, hope NR , nonveridical antirogative —not the fact that the predicate can trigger the relevant inferences NR believe , To give a sense for how sensitive the correlation is to these assumptions, Fig- Large-scale datasets from which such measures can be derived currently exist for think predicts that one should find a perfect positive correlation across predicates predicates and how distinguishable the categories are: the larger the ratio of distance correlations among dimensions withinextremely a clearly category; delineated—in Figure andcentroids 1 is (iv) 10(left), that times the the the intraclass distance classes standard between are deviation the along each class ure dimension. 2 (left) plots the simulated correlation when varying the proportion of veridical on a simulation assuminglicit 500 predicates. category ( This simulationmultivariate normal assumes and (i) contains an that equal each for number each of predicates; dimension (ii) is that the equal variance within and across categories; (iii) that there are no and then compare the results of these simulations against the observed data. 3.1 Evidence against V quantitative evidence against evidence against I begin each subsectiongeneralization’s by quantitative predictions using under statistical different distributional simulations assumptions to cash out the relevant quantitative measures of veridicality, neg-raising, responsivity, and preferentiality. MegaNegRaising dataset; An & White ability2020), dataset; andWhite responsivity & (the Rawlins MegaAccept- my2016 , knowledge,2020)—enabling a tests sufficiently of large-scale datasets measuring preferentiality does not Under the interpretation of the contrast in (1) mustof be that the default contextsfor against a which particular the sentence, default these senses acceptability default and senses inference and judgments, contexts remain all constant three across generalizations are testable given similarly be required to save 3 Experimental evidence against the generalizations On believing and hoping whether relevant to in some contexts. Thus, the weak interpretation of at least yet exist. As such, I focus only on veridicality (the MegaVeridicality dataset; White & Rawlins 2018b), neg-raising (the This prediction is visualized in Figure 1 (left), with points and correlations based (modulo measurement error) between measures of veridicality and responsivity. Absent an argument that (6) contains a veridical sense of early access 3 .Tefc htte iutnosyts ohgeneralizations both test simultaneously they that fact The 1995). Ginzburg 1991, banaqatttv esr fvrdclt o broad a for veridicality of measure quantitative a obtain (2018b) Rawlins & White aei o refrtesmltosrpre n§3.2. The in quadrant. reported a right simulations assuming upper the as the for correlation in true on points not effect 0.7 more is same the putting same the by responsives—i.e. overplotted quadrant—has veridical is left of line lower proportion 0.3 the higher the in and points line, more 0.9 putting for the i.e. because, by occurs overplotted pattern is This (left) for 2 line. better Figure or in 7 line 0.1 of The out 4 of judgment acceptability average complements—operationalized declarative an with as acceptable are that English of swath correlation the assesses responsivity. that and analysis veridicality their of of replication relevant measures a not their on is between only that focus analysis I their so report and here, they how in complexity Berman additional also requires (see 1975 Hintikka to attributes Egré that generalization related closely than negative unlikely more extremely correlation be would a it see noisy, to exceedingly are responsivity bound and lower below veridicality the of dipping with never interval zero, confidence around the is of correlation distance-standard average the 0.5—the distinguish—i.e. is to ratio hard deviation very are categories the where distinguish- scenario more the deviation, categories. standard the category able to centroids category the between 1 Figure veridicality ● antirogatives nonveridical ● ● MgVrdclt dataset, MegaVeridicality their construct to task judgment veridicality a Using of predictions the test (2018b) Rawlins & White ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● iuae rdcin of predictions Simulated ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 3 ●

h antk-wyfo hspo sta,ee ntewrtcase worst the in even that, is plot this from take-away main The responsivity ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● r =0.93 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● V ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● responsives veridical ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● suigahge rprino ovrdclantirogatives— nonveridical of proportion higher a assuming , ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● V ● − lf)and (left) 6 .8if 0.08 neg−raising ● ● antirogatives non−neg−raising responsives non−neg−raising ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● − ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● V ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● .8 hti,ee ftemeasures the if even is, That 0.08. ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● NR ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● eetrue. were ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● V ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● lnsd h rdcin fa of predictions the alongside , ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● (right). ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● responsivity (7a) ● ● ● ● ● ● ● or ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● r =−0.46 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● (7b) ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● antirogatives neg−raising ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● White in ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● White ● ● ● early access (9b) 6 and constituent (9a) no , responses and more negative yes responses, adjusts for biases in how . V no 7 maybe or maybe not 4 , yes -scores (see White & Rawlins 2020: Appendix C). z 5 . b. Someone (was) {thought, told, ...} which thing happened. b. Someone (was) {thought, told ...} something happened. Did that thing happen? b. Someone was {told, worried, ...} that something happened. White &(2018b) Rawlins then derive a measure of responsivity for each verb know these predicates are known to be degraded with polar interrogative complements (cf. Sæbø 2007). White et) al.(2018 substantially expandinfinitival MegaVeridicality complement. to Since predicatesEgré thatdiscusses take onlyTheir various finite task types interrogatives, I of manipulates do not the discussrelevant matrix here, this expansion. polarity, given the but definition only ofIt the veridicality is in important positive to polarity include items, constituent such interrogatives in as order,(8) to capture are many emotive predicates, since Finally, to derive the measure of responsivity,and they declarative-taking take measures the for minimum each of predicate. interrogative- The idea behind this responsivity (9) a. Someone (was) {thought, toldacceptablility ...} over whether both something the happened. overt (10a) and covert (10b) (10) complementizer variants. a. Someone (was) {thought, told ...} that something happened. from MegaAcceptability using the normalized acceptability scores describedtaking by the maximum average acceptabilityinterrogatives. over both The polar idea behind thistaking measure insofar is as to it treat is a good predicate with as either interrogative- polar or constituent interrogatives. procedure like that used by White &more(2020). Rawlins positive values This for procedure, predicates which that produces receive more particular participants use the ordinalby-participant scale and shows high correlation with mean as (8), White &(2018b) Rawlins apply an ordinal mixed model-based normalization for (8) Someone knew that a particular thing happened. On believing and hoping whether MegaAcceptability fit this criterion. (7) a. Someone {thought, knew, ...} that something happened. values for predicates the receive more They derive an analogous measure of declarative-taking by taking the maximum To obtain a measure of each predicate’s veridicality from responses to prompts such &’s Rawlins 2016, ( 2020) MegaAcceptability. dataset A total of 517 verbs in White &(2016). Rawlins They first derive a measure of interrogative-taking by White &’( Rawlins 2018b) veridicality judgment task prompt is exemplified in (8) 4 5 6 early access lat elrtv-aighv egt er0. near weights have declarative-taking “least” ihadcaaiepeiae htaels cetbewt elrtvsreceiving declaratives with acceptable less are that declarative—predicates a with egtteraaye yacceptability by analyses their weight 2018b) ( Rawlins & White this, with deal To orlto iltstepeitosof predictions the violates correlation corresponding is The declarative-taking by weight. declarative-taking weighted by correlation weighted line regression The linear weight. a declarative-taking shows the to corresponding transparency with cality, the are that predicates that and are 1 that near predicates weights that have ensures declarative-taking method “most” cumulative This the normal values. the those apply to then function and MegaVeridicality distribution the in predicates they only weight, across this derive To weight. less C). Appendix 2020: Rawlins & White in in items histograms natural ungrammatical the no (see and is MegaAcceptability there grammatical since distinguishing unavoidable, largely threshold is predicate acceptability it a but that declaratives; presuppose with §2 acceptable in potentially is discussed is situation generalizations allows This the declaratives declaratives. because with with problematic middling acceptability quite be on might (2018b) based that Rawlins’ predicates predicates & White selecting since for declarative-taking, of method measure the two. in the variability of to acceptable less the taking with to either, good measure with is responsivity degraded it the is that sets it extent extent minimum the the the to to only declaratives: responsive and as interrogatives predicate both a treat to is measure 2 Figure Correlation 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 (et lt h esr frsosvt gis h esr fveridi- of measure the against responsivity of measure the plots (left) 3 Figure sensitive is it that is for account not does responsivity of measure this thing One Proportion veridical 0.5 ● ● ● ● ● Ratio ofdistancebetweencentroids rgt.Errbr hw 5 ofiec intervals. confidence 95% shows bars Error (right). orltosudrdfeetsmlto supin for assumptions simulation different under Correlations 1.0 ● ● ● ● ● to standard deviation 2.0 ● ● ● ● ● ● 0.1 ● 4.0 ● ● ● ● ● 0.3 ● 0.5 8.0 ● ● ● ● ● ● 0.7 ● 16.0 ● ● ● ● 0.9 V vnudrtewrtcs iuainas- simulation worst-case the under even , z 8 soetemaueo declarative-taking of measure the -score Correlation −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0.0 − Proportion neg−raising .0(5 I=[ = CI (95% 0.10 0.5 ● ● ● ● ● Ratio ofdistancebetweencentroids 1.0 ● ● ● ● ● to standard deviation 2.0 ● ● ● ● ● ● − 0.1 .0 .0) This 0.00]). 0.20, 4.0 ● ● ● ● ● ● V 0.3 lf)and (left) ● 0.5 8.0 ● ● ● ● ● ● 0.7 White 16.0 ● NR ● ● ● ● ● 0.9 early access with NR —the case NR -axis, the distance x does not predict that NR ● Neg−Raising ● ● is false as a generalization about the

V Responsivity 9 ● ● ● NR , which takes the form of a biconditional, V Veridicality Correlations between veridicality (left), neg-raisingsivity. (right), and respon-

predicts a negative correlation between measures of neg-raising and responsivity. To give a sense for how sensitive the correlation is to these assumptions, Figure 2 Responsivity of responsives to antirogatives among the non-neg-raisers, leaving that ratio constant predicates and how distinguishable the categoriesbetween are. the centroid For of the theraising non-neg-raising antirogatives responsives is and used the to centroid compute of the the ratio. neg- These plots do not vary the ratio responsives to antirogatives among the non-neg-raisers.of In 1Figure is 1 assumed,(right), and a insofar as ratio the ratio is high, the correlation will beeffectively higher no and predictive power. NR But in contrast to the correlation is perfect, sinceis it visualized takes in theFigure form 1 ofto (right), aFigure which conditional. 1 employs The(left). similar reason distributional The for assumptions predicted this correlation is highly dependent on the ratio of the sumptions discussed above, suggesting that lexicon as a whole. 3.2 Evidence against Figure 3 On believing and hoping whether vice versa. Indeed, a correlation of 0 is technically compatible with (right) plots the simulated correlation when varying the proportion of neg-raising where there are either no responsives or no neg-raisers—but it would leave early access 7 fe hwn htti ehdtak e-asn uget eotdi h lit- the in reported judgments neg-raising tracks method this that showing After measure a derive White & An dataset. MegaNegRaising (2020) White’s & An with is, That 0.09. above rising never interval confidence zero the around of is bound correlation upper 0.5—the the is with ratio deviation distance-standard the where egt h orsodn orlto egtdb elrtv-aigi .2(95% 0.22 is declarative-taking by weighted correlation corresponding The weight. ooti igemaueo e-asn o ahpeiae aetemxmmof maximum the take I predicate, each for neg-raising of measure single a obtain To person of combination each with neg-raising predicate’s each of measure a obtain To (2018b) Rawlins’ & White under complement declarative a with acceptable verbs eeteeyulkl oseacreainmr oiieta .9if 0.09 than positive more would correlation it a noisy, exceedingly see are to responsivity unlikely and extremely neg-raising be of measures the if even even that, distinguish—e.g. is to plot hard this very are from categories take-away the main where the scenario plot, case left worst the the in to Analogous 1. at ol ou nfiieitroaie—n hsi is it thus interrogatives—and finite that on test predicates focus correctly for only to judgments al. how similar et unclear collecting Theiler in Since (2018) al. complements. infinitival et take White follow additionally of White predictions & An the violates correlation This 0.30]). [0.14, declarative-taking = by CI weighted regression declarative- linear the a shows to line corresponding The transparency weight. with taking neg-raising, of measure this is tense. it and if subject neg-raising of is combination predicate one a least that at assumption with variants the neg-raising tense with and predicate, subject particular four a all for across judgments neg-raising normalized D). these Appendix a apply 2020: (2018b) White Rawlins & & An White (see (11), procedure as normalization such model-based prompts mixed to responses from tense and English all ( present to subject the method both their varying apply criterion, declarative-taking White & An C), Appendix (their well erature slider. (11) a with to (11) instance, to For respond another. to say asked they were if participants thing one mean to to whether asked is assess are speaker participants a wherein likely how task, judge judgment likelihood a using neg-raising of (12) otest To esr frsosvt against responsivity of measure (2018b) Rawlins ’ & White plots (right) 3 Figure ). I{int o’} atclrpro dd’,dent}tikta partic- a that think doesn’t}} happened. {didn’t, thing person ular particular A don’t}, {didn’t, {I that mean actually I that it say to were I If 7 (12). in exemplified are (11) in item the for variants subject-tense The NR ehdlg nconjunction in methodology (2018b) Rawlins’ & White deploy I , think sngriigi h rsn es ihafis esnsubject, person first a with tense present the in neg-raising is NR o’ hn htapriua hn happened thing particular a that think don’t I o nntvltkn rdctsIfcsol nfiiedeclaratives. finite on only focus predicates—I infinitival-taking for hn htta hn inthappen didn’t thing that that think I 10 first v. third NR n es ( tense and ) vnudrthe under even , NR o ieyis likely how , ? eetrue. were past White v. early access , think , showing —e.g. for is false as a fear NR should not take and whether , showing that neither hope believe and believe and think think fail when applied to the lexicon as a is constrained to preferential predicates. NR 11 P is attested with interrogative complements in + predict that and V V NR think From the results of this search, I select examples that 8 . and V in any morphological form, followed by 9 ) interrogatives because, following Egré, I assume that polar interrogative believing whether fear and whether The image of having theing members of up[...]cheering one and branch hollering of while government stand- the court[...]has to sit there, , and cannot explain these examples. can explain these examples. I then turn in §4.2 to P hope , + [THINK] [WHETHER] NR Thinking : V I break discussion of these examples into two sections based on which general- I select examples from two corpora: the Corpus of Contemporary American nor I focus on polar ( selection is more constrained thanAn constituent anonymous interrogative reviewer selection. reports that theyothers find are most not of as the goodinteresting, examples for but cited them. it below acceptable, is An but out exploration that of of scope such for idiolectal the variation current in paper. this area would be interrogative complements. But transcribed speech (13), periodical text (14), and internet text (13) (15). a. izations they are relevant to. InV §4.1, I discuss that believe think I (a native speaker of Englishacceptable acquired in in context. Southern California) take to be perfectly 4.1 English (COCA; Davies 2008) andcorpus that, the at iWeb the Corpus time (Davies five of2018 ). genres: my spoken, search, COCA fiction, contains is popular over magazines, a iWeb 500 is newspapers, million and a words academic corpus spread texts; containing over and overetc.). 14 To billion search words for of examples, web I text use (blogs, each news corpus’ articles, web interface to query for statement further—e.g. in the way Such a constraint mightretaining serve the to core exclude contrast in peripheralthis.(1) classes core On of contrast the predicates, basis cannot of while jettisoned. be corpus retained examples, and I argue that that all even three generalizations should be Having established that at least On believing and hoping whether generalization about the lexicon as a whole. 4 Corpus evidence against the generalizations As discussed in §2, both whole, I now address the possibility that they might be rescued by constraining their worst-case simulation assumptions discussed above, suggesting that 8 9 early access a. (14) osntdssoit rdct’ rpniyt ies e-asn naparticular a it in because neg-raising weak, license quite to is propensity it predicate’s generalization, a the disassociate for not evidence does of indeed proponent is A point here. data occur this to it expect interrogative to should with take one occurs I NR why never what unclear neg-raising up is argument: patch it al.’s to so et aside complements, Theiler brief in a flaw take ages)! a to (*in like be called would who I believe forward, won’t You moving Before (6) strong that complement. fact the the in by evidenced licensed (6), not in are argue triggered NPIs is al. inference et neg-raising Theiler no that because Remember of below. compatibility duplicated the and that §2 in discussed (6), in that desire. least possible at a in of active consideration one encouraging the be to appear not involve is roughly, to move seem this paraphrases reasonable veridicality, predicate wherein to the (15), respect and (13) with for But suspect somewhat non-neg-raising. and veridical are remember like save predicates to attempt to might one examples, these of think subset a least at In a. (15) hs xmlsmyb espolmtcfor problematic less be may examples These ih ru htti aapiti nte ic feiec nterfvr u if But favor. their in evidence of piece another is point data this that argue might think approach 2015 Egré’s & Spector (see contexts these in veridical fact in is osdrtefact the consider b. b. to trying I’m b. and , smlrt how to (13)-(15)—similar in neg-raising not is a otwiet okit te TLDs. other into look to worthwhile was whether whether n eaieysot htstuhadh tre to started he and tough keyword-rich, That’s brandable, short. memorable, relatively was and that domain third. a major wanted the [...]he than bigger interval an play I beginners) (especially players to other start some to listening when [O]ften, she passengers, the for briefing to safety tried her completed Brown Jan When to have people[...]will and unbelievable is righteousness to [...]the you cause does it And troubling. very expressionless[...]is consider think tell hn whether think in hn whether think .Frexample, For ). hywn ormr er fthat. of years more four want they there. be to us for sense makes it not or Now, . (14b) believe ncnrs to contrast in , hn whether think ih eprprsdusing paraphrased be might osdrthat consider iha nergtv opeeti nypossible only is complement interrogative an with hr’ nuwitnlwfrgiait onever to guitarists for law unwritten an there’s h a oee everything. covered had she think osdrtepossibility the consider 12 ’ aebe trtdyo not. or today star a been have I’d (13b) in a elhv eiia sense— veridical a have well may (14a) hri h pae em obe to seems speaker the wherein , NR ic rpnnsmgtargue might proponents since , ih eprprsdusing paraphrased be might believe gr out figure btta es does sense that —but V sntneg-raising not is hn whether think yagigthat arguing by oho which of both , think think White it early access 10 think think . help —analogous (20b) in and neg-raising either or not Jagex can detect the . Applying this test to corpus —i.e. the inference that a speaker the word of God is true[...]or not. I could trust the Scriptures[...] think whether in (17) still might be a different think 13 , the strong NPI is fine in (18) with low attachment to (20a) believing whether there was a way to[...]help more than one person. believe whether believe whether until... is such a predicate, and it is compatible with interrogative opinionatedness inference interrogative-to-declarative test Believe thinking whether [...]I didn’t believe the Bibleup, growing up, I I struggled wasn’t to aWe Christian can growing choose to I am torn between RSBot client. b. c. b. We can choose not to believe the word of God is true either. I was I wasn’t thinking there wasuntil a Jo way to got help back more from than lunch. one person (at a time) With this in mind, I propose that a better test is to minimally modify sentences customer at a time, when the help desk was staffed with three people. One property that all of theeither sentences do in not (19) triggershare an is that, inFor context, those they having apparently difficulty obtainingspeaker’s the manager low is attachment questioning reading, why they, consider as a team context leader wherein at the a help desk, were serving only one But unlike (6), at leasttest. some of For these instance, examples in pass theto the context(19b)—is interrogative-to-declarative of clearly good. (20) a. We can choose not to believe the teachings of the Buddha are true. from the one in ,(18) regular though polysemy such of a this polysemy form, issimilar it otherwise behavior. would unmotivated. be To posit necessary a tocomplements—seen see in other(6) predicatesand showing corroborated by (19). (19) a. (18) (16) *You won’t believe thatI someone refer called to in this ages! asexamples the like (17) yields contexts whereare both possible: the strong NPI like (6) to remove anyaspects effect of of the the form context—e.g. of bydeclarative, the simply complement as converting while in an retaining(16). interrogative, all as other When in we(6) , do to this a for ,(6) we get a result consistent with On believing and hoping whether context from other syntactic andsuch semantic as factors the form that of might the block complement. the inference, (17) This form of argument is weak, since the Theiler et al.’s argument: (16) is bad. 10 early access —rte nyd ovcosy in vacuously: so do only they 1973)—or h uses who V 4.2 The belief. firm inference a neg-raising the have of not derivation do the in they implicated that in is and states inference opinionated; explicitly opinionatedness yet speaker not the presumably torn, is being cohort speaker’s the thus and of in use inference; the the before entailing Bible the of trustworthiness the Iwas I a. (23) (22) (23). text internet and (22) transcripts But Sudo. & Uegaki hope both that argue I complements, interrogative interpret proof, to of contradictory veridicality be the would and it belief so of Beyond nonveridicality and true. the be between to contrast opinion a that draws proving asserts as then same for opinion, the problematic an not being has is Stavin opinion that said ground having common that as takes author the Here, (21) sentences. all for possible not is move this weakening generalization, substantially that beyond of But power save context. predictive to in the used met be are then neg-raising could for fact conditions this so approaches, some in + ntebsso hs xmls tetn that attesting examples, these of basis the On (21). Consider P Hoping and rdcsthat predicts b. now. but right choices candidates establishment outsider the about on all focusing it’s to back return will Republicans and Rubio, Walker, Bush, and like wondering people others has really boom Trump/Carson This policy. a such was there proving as same the not is policy MCA an towards had policy hands-off certain a of keep MCA[...]" part to the D.C. on Washington, effort within orchestrated individuals organized, prosecutor[...]declared[...] an federal was it veteran believe "[...]I former a Stavin, [...]Richard PbleeS believe NP fear aedn ut i frsac nuigaLmtdC u was but Co points[...] Limited few a a using of on understanding research of bit whether a hoping quite a done have I and r w ftecnrlcssdsusda vdnefor evidence as discussed cases central the of two are ern whether fearing hope oigwhether hoping eivn whether Believing hope NR endorses and hseapei lopolmtcfor problematic also is example this , satse ihitroaiecmlmnsi ohspeech both in complements interrogative with attested is (19b) fear oigwhether hoping oen ihmr xeinecudcnr my confirm could experience more with someone J hieo eifhsaprnl o enmade been not apparently has belief of choice a , hudnttk nergtv opeet.Indeed, complements. interrogative take not should NP K o r bet ud me[...] guide to able are you BELIEVE eti niiul ihnWsigo D.C. Washington within individuals certain 14 (19a) believe V and itr ilrpa tefadwhether and itself repeat will history J nepii eifi ttdabout stated is belief explicit an , S K think eiv whether believe ∨ NR svrdcli hscontext. this in veridical as J NP hudb jettisoned. be should and K BELIEVE NR believe V (21) of content the : ydnigta the that denying by assymetrically , oide take indeed do ¬ J S K V (19c) (Bartsch + White P in , by early access stars . doubt , one does not , one does not ’s complement, are in some sense fear whether (26c) fear (26a) do indeed take interrog- their children will ever fear , one does not infer that the hope whether and creates such a context. But this (26b) , is licensed by downward-entailing and , where no downward-entailing oper- hope fear whether , which is unambiguously interrogative- (25a) . having a distinct semantics. in 15 (25d) - fear should be jettisoned. wonder be certain hope that fear hope P + Jo doubts whether Bo left. (25b) I’ll have use of my arms/hands by age 55 or 60. V ≈ this test would run safely on the oxygen sensor as it scoping over no . Further, running the interrogative-to-declarative test on these fear whether is coordinated with might be explained under ’sMayr (2018) proposal that interrogative fear fear whether —evoking Karttunen’s) (1977b observation that declarative and polar I fear that this testlot would of run drawback safely when on compared the with oxygen the sensor others. as it hasI a know parents who seriously fearmeaningful that job. their children will ever hold a Interstellar space is so vastin that the there Andromeda is galaxy no will needI accidentally to slam into the Sun. has a lot of drawback when compared with the others. I know parents who seriously hold a meaningful job. hope (25a) b. c. [...]I fear that I won’t have use of my arms/hands by age 55 or 60. b. c. d. [...]I hope that Similar examples can be found for On the basis of theseative examples, complements, attesting I that argue that speaker will not (or will)infer have that use the of parents’ their children arms/hands; will and (not) from ever hold(26) a meaningful job. a. move is not available forators at outscope least cases does not yield veridicalitysuggesting inferences that about the veridicality content is of notinfer licensing that these the cases: test from would (not) run safely; from Example embedding for some predicates, like contexts, since the (25) a. that, in , (22) taking. Thus, even if oneinterchangeable, argues this that explanation cannot presumeto that the the interrogative interchangeability embedded is under due interrogative complements appear interchangeable for responsives like (24) Jo doubts that Bo left. interrogative is somehow different from the one found under other predicates: note On believing and hoping whether using A potential worry with at least the sentences in (23) is that they seem paraphrasable While such a paraphrase may be available, this availability cannot imply that the early access h rpsl icse eepru h adbega fascaigslcinwith selection associating of goal laudable the pursue here discussed proposals The xeietldt n xmlsatse ncroata hs eeaiain r,if are, generalizations these that corpora large-scale in both attested from examples evidence presented and have rest data I experimental proposals falsifiable. these thus which and on predictive generalizations are the and that neg-raising, means veridicality, This as preferentiality. such properties, lexical motivated independently Conclusion 5 izug oahn 95 eovn usin,II. , Resolving 1995. Jonathan. Ginzburg, 2011. Ross. Benjamin George, polarity. and Neg-raising 2007. Robert. 2017. Jon Gajewski, Uegaki. Wataru & Sudo Yasutada Klinedinst, Nathan D, Patrick Elliott, factivity. and -embedding 2008. https://www.english-corpora.org/iWeb/. Paul. Corpus. Egré, iWeb The (COCA). 2018. English Mark. American Davies, Contemporary of Corpus The 2008. Mark. Davies, 2016. A. Elizabeth Bogal-Allbritten, 1991. S.R. Berman, nicht. es gibt transportation” “Negative 1973. Renate. Bartsch, neg- of sources grammatical and lexical The 2020. White. Aaron & Hannah An, Moulton 2006, Kratzer also see 2016). 2018a ; Bogal-Allbritten Rawlins 2009, be stativity, & as might (White such properties properties, and lexical structural durativity, of event It set clause-selection—e.g. alternative predict wholesale. that some abandoned found that be possibility should live properties a semantic remains lexical of terms in stated jettisoned. be should they that frail so falsified, outright not http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00983299. 567–609. 18(6). . http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18756735-90000845 85–125. 77(1). nvriyo aiona o nee dissertation. Angeles Los California, of University . http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10988-007-9020-z 289–328. 30(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffx008. 547–554. embedding. 34(3). question of theories and relevance of Predicates https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/. dissertation. Amherst Massachusetts, dissertation. Amherst Massachusetts, of University MA: 1–7. 27(7). . http://dx.doi.org/10.7275/yts0-q989 220–233. 3(1). inferences. raising selection clause of theories that imply not does finding this though, Importantly, ntesmnisadlgclfr fwh-clauses of form logical and semantics the On rceig fteSceyfrCmuaini Linguistics in Computation for Society the of Proceedings usinEbdigadteSmniso Answers of Semantics the and Embedding Question uligMaigi Navajo in Meaning Building 16 rzrPioohsh Studien Philosophische Grazer igitc n Philosophy and Linguistics igitc n Philosophy and Linguistics igitsh Berichte Linguistische ora fSemantics of Journal nvriyof University : Amherst, . White : early access : Natural , 58–59. The Intentions Linguistics and : Massachusetts . Oxford: Oxford Linguistic Inquiry Natural Language 192(6). 1729–1784. , 1–25. Dordrecht: D. Lecture Notes in Computer Synthese The CLS Book of Squibs 27. 248–265. http://dx.doi.org/10. , 863–880. Edinburgh: Semantics Archive. 17 29. 665–685. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/salt. Interpreting Questions under Attitudes http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11050-019-09152-9. Natural Selection and the Syntax of Clausal Complementation Questions and Answers in Embedded Contexts Logic, Language, and Computation 1(1). 3–44. . http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00351935 27(4). 323–356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11050-019-09156-5. Semantics and Linguistic Theory doesn’t like interrogative complements, and other puzzles. believe Institute of Technology dissertation. 3765/salt.v27i0.4125. rogatives: An answer, not necessarilyhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0722-4 the. answer. Zeevat (eds.), Science, 189–199. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. 3-540-75144-1_14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978- University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation. . https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/DcwY2JkM/attitude-verbs2006.pdf University Press. Chris Cummins, Caroline Heycock, Brian Rabern & Hannah Rohde (eds.), Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. out for talk given at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. logical Verbs: A Survey ofof Some Intentionality Problems and and Other Proposals.Reidel. New In Models for Modalities Semantics Semantics and Linguistic Theory v29i0.4634. Language Semantics Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 21 Philosophy whether. 10(2). 279–326. Uegaki, Wataru. 2015. Uegaki, Wataru & Yasutada Sudo. 2019. The *hope-wh puzzle. Theiler, Nadine, Floris Roelofsen & Maria Aloni. 2017. What’s wrong with believing Theiler, Nadine, Floris Roelofsen & Maria Aloni. 2019. Picky predicates: Why Spector, Benjamin & Paul Egré. 2015. A uniform semantics for embedded inter- Sæbø, Kjell Johan. 2007. A Whether Forecast. In Balder D. ten Cate & Henk W. Moulton, Keir. 2009. Roberts, Tom. 2019. I can’t believe it’s not lexical: Deriving distributed veridicality. Lahiri, Utpal. 2002. Mayr, Clemens. 2018. Predicting polar question embedding. In Robert Truswell, Karttunen, Lauri. 1977b. To doubt whether. In Kratzer, Angelika. 2006. Decomposing attitude verbs. Hand- Hintikka, Jaakko. 1975. Different Constructions in Terms of the Basic Epistemo- Karttunen, Lauri. 1977a. Syntax and semantics of questions. On believing and hoping whether Grimshaw, Jane. 1979. Complement selection and the lexicon. early access ao tvnWhite Steven Aaron ht,ArnSee yeRwis 08.Terl fvrdclt n factivity and veridicality of role The 2018b. Rawlins. Kyle & Steven Aaron White, change and agnosticism Question 2018a. Rawlins. Kyle & Steven Aaron White, S-selection. of model computational A 2016. Rawlins. Kyle & Steven Aaron White, wrs rn.19.Tretpso oaiy nFizHm radW Hinrichs W. Erhard & Hamm Fritz In polarity. of types Three 1998. Frans. S. Zwarts, In complementizers. certain on restrictions Semantic 1982. Richard. Zuber, infinitives. English in aspect and Tense 2014. Susi. Wurmbrand, Durme. Van Benjamin & Rawlins Kyle Rudinger, Rachel Steven, Aaron White, selection: and acceptability, Frequency, 2020. Rawlins. Kyle & Steven Aaron White, [email protected] 14627 NY Rochester, Blvd. Wilson C. Joseph 500 Rochester of University Linguistics of Department Hall Lattimore 511A anhRhe(eds.), Rohde Hannah & aesuyo clause-embedding. of study case A http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00161. 403–447. 45(3). http: Linguistics. Computational for Association Belgium: Brussels, 4724. ofrneo miia ehd nNtrlLnug Processing Language Natural in Methods Empirical on Conference (eds.), Linguists . //dx.doi.org/10.18653/v1/D18-1501 v26i0.3819. Theory Linguistic and Semantics dnug:SmnisArchive. Semantics Rabern Edinburgh: Brian Heycock, Caroline Cummins, Chris Truswell, Robert In state. of 8_5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2706- Springer. Dordrecht: 177–238. phy, (eds.), Inoue K. & Hattori In models. neural in inference Lexicosyntactic 2018. gjgl.1001. Society Linguistic Publications. East GLSA North MA: the of (eds.), Meeting Nelson Annual Max 48th & the Hucklebridge Sherry In selection. clause in lrlt n Quantification and Plurality 3–3.Tko rceig ulcto Committee. Publication Proceedings Tokyo: 434–436. , rceig fSn n eetn 21 Bedeutung und Sinn of Proceedings rceig fte1t nentoa ogesof Congress International 13th the of Proceedings http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/salt. 641–663. 26. Glossa o.6 tde nLnusisadPhiloso- and Linguistics in Studies 69 vol. , 18 http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/ 1–41. 5(1). rceig fte2018 the of Proceedings 2–3.Amherst, 221–234. , igitcInquiry Linguistic rceig of Proceedings 1325–1342. , 4717– , White