Perspectives in Reported Discourse a Dissertation Submitted to The
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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 .