Semantics & Pragmatics Volume 11, Article 2, 2018 https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.11.2

This is an early access version of

Pearson, Hazel. 2018. Counterfactual de se. Semantics and Pragmatics 11(2). https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.11.2.

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

©2018 Hazel Pearson 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

Counterfactual de se* Hazel Pearson Queen Mary University of London

Abstract This paper addresses a long-standing debate concerning the derivation of de se construals. One camp holds that there is a dedicated mechanism of ‘de se binding’, which results in a de se pronoun being interpreted as a variable ranging over the doxastic alternatives of the attitude holder (e.g. Chierchia 1990). Another treats de se as a special case of de re under the acquaintance relation of identity (e.g. Lewis 1979, Reinhart 1990). This debate is premised on the assumption that the two different routes to de se result in identical truth conditions. I argue that this assumption is incorrect for a class of cases that can be delineated in a principled fashion — counterfactual attitude reports involving counter-identity, such as Ivanka imagined that she was Melania and she was giving an interview. The argument builds on Ninan 2008, who noticed that de re construal works differently with counterfactual attitudes, and that this has consequences for de se interpretation in this type of sentence. I spell out these consequences more precisely, drawing on a novel, crosslinguistically robust generalization about unambiguously de se expressions such as PRO (the ‘De Se Generalization’). I argue that a treatment of such expressions that appeals to de se-as-de re cannot account for the De Se Generalization in a principled way, and hence that a dedicated mechanism of de se binding must be included among the expressive resources of the grammar.

Keywords: attitude reports, de se, de re, counterfactual attitudes, obligatory control, indexi- cal shift

* For helpful comments and discussion, I thank Gennaro Chierchia, Jeruen Dery, Vera Hohaus, Hans Kamp, Natasha Korotkova, Emar Maier, Andreea Nicolae, Dilip Ninan, Orin Percus, Konstantin Sachs, Paolo Santorio, Frank Sode, Stephanie Solt, Yasutada Sudo and Igor Yanovich. Thanks also to Dorothy Ahn and Yangsook Park for Korean judgments, and to audiences at ZAS Berlin, the SynSem lunch seminar at the University of Oslo, Queen Mary University of London, the New York Philosophy of Language Workshop, the University of Göttingen and the NonFinite Subjects Conference at the University of Nantes. Special thanks to S&P editor Josh Dever, Pranav Anand and two further anonymous reviewers for detailed comments on the manuscript which led to a much improved paper, and to Mohammad Alhailawani for typesetting assistance. The research leading to these results has received funding from the People Programme (Marie Curie Actions) of the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP72007-2013) under grant agreement no. 618871. early access 1 e n o nteoehn,i em htw a oeetyutr(3). utter coherently can we that seems it hand, one the On no. and Yes a srbn otsm doyt a isl sgonst reject to grounds is himself was to idiocy loathsome ascribing was eei tr htwstl om yafin h ihst eananonymous. remain to wishes who friend a by me to (1) told was that story a is Here Introduction 1 s oneigmrl oidct neddcrfrne h nie r o en ohv theoretical have to meant not are indices the coreference; intended status. indicate to judged merely is true. coindexing sentence use judged I the is reading, it former one the latter the On the of not. value on is truth and it false, the which to on relevant one is and himself sentence, recognize to failure Jonathan’s which on true be to taken (4) say: also could we But (3) what Jonathan describe then we can (2) So himself. Jonathan sentence? Jonathan is following though it the even that with know, that We out, happened individual? realizes it that he figured is when yet Who moment not mirror). the has a until — Jonathan in up him looking least call is (at — he idiot friend loathsome our a whom individual be certain to believes a is there story, this In ntescn icus,tefc htJnta intraieta h esnhe person the that realize didn’t Jonathan that fact the discourse, second the In alhg irr—adhdtu atsc naprinuo myself. upon a aspersion into an gazing such was cast I thus that had realize and to — later, mirror moment wall-high short a therefore, startling, was hth a h esnta ehdi mind. in had he that person the was he that Jonathan mind. in had he that person the was he that Jonathan It idiot. loathsome of form some was countenance, he and that face judgment his swift took man, the I this to define, of came can’t appearance and I the reasons short to For dislike a me. immediate sitting at an man back a roughly by staring amongst away, distracted talking distance momentarily were myself friends found my I While around establishment. congregate themselves, the to today table of was another middle corner found the this grumpily nearer — that outside we pedestrians glass, so of and wall-high antics taken, by the already sides at gaze two to frequently on us we enclosed allowed which our in spot, corner was a The as — school. ourselves McDonald’s, to local perched hill the the up in heading friends to prior with custom, sitting was I morning One i i i intbleeta he that believe didn’t eivdta he that believed eivdta he that believed despite hsfc.I em hnthat then seems It fact. this i i a otsm idiot. loathsome a was a otsm do,atog edd’ realize didn’t he although idiot, loathsome a was i a otsm do,bcueh intrealize didn’t he because idiot, loathsome a was 1 2 (2) a w nepeain:one interpretations: two has (2) in ; ae Pearson Hazel (3) , (2) is early access . If a de se as in the following , while on the latter de se claim and say , 3 pretend , wish , imagine . A de se report of an attitude (a belief, desire, speech act, de re is judged false on the de se construal: Jonathan’s belief of himself (2) 2 comes about because the pronoun can, but does not have to be de se bound. Throughout this debate, it has been taken for granted that the two ‘routes to The topic of this paper is the proper analysis of de se reports. Beginning with The difference seems to come down to the interpretation of the pronoun: on (2) By ‘counterfactual attitude verb’ Itowards mean a a content while verb simultaneously denoting believing an that attitude that that content one is can false. hold coherently acquaintance relation. I shall argueclass that of this environment assumption — is namely incorrect reportsshoes for of of a an someone particular attitude other holder than who puttingattitude she herself actually verbs in is. the such Such cases as ariseexamples: with counterfactual call ‘SELF’. Reinhart 1990 andthis subsequently ‘de ( Maier se2006, via2009, de2011)to re’ argued route de that is se sufficient: binding, de which se therefore construal should can not be be derived postulated. withoutde appeal se’ result inproduces equivalent is truth identical conditions: to that the which interpretation would that result from de de se re binding construal under the SELF of ‘de se binding’ thatPercus produces & de Sauerland se2003a,b, truth conditionsvonof Stechow (e.g. 2002, Anand2003). & On Nevins 2004, thisOn view, the the other ambiguity hand, Lewis re 1979 construalnoticed of that the de pronoun se under construal a could special be acquaintance derived relation via which de we might se. Hence that he is a loathsomehand, idiot de does re not satisfy beliefs the thatcondition; awareness are hence condition. about if On the the the attitude other pronoun holder is are construed not de subject re, to then theChierchia we awareness 1990, judge some the researchers sentence have true. argued that there is a dedicated mechanism However it lacks thelooking second in a property, mirror. since Attitudes Jonathan thatthe have ‘aboutness’ does both condition not properties and — the know thatpronoun ‘awareness’ is, that condition is that — construed he are satisfy de attitudes both is se,if then both the conditions attitude are report satisfied, in and which the it reported occurs attitude is is only therefore true an attitude de one it is read etc.) is a reportholder, of and an which furthermore attitude the that attitude in holder some is aware intuitive is sense aboutproperty, since is him- the or ‘about’ person herself. the Jonathan attitude is looking at is none other than Jonathan himself. Counterfactual de se the former reading, we shall say that the pronoun is read Jonathan’s belief that the person he is looking at is a loathsome idiot has the first 2 early access esalb eunn oi hrl.Frnw hl utasm that assume just shall I now, For shortly. it to returning be shall we hrfr,teei es binding. se de is there Therefore, 5 a. (5) rmdt novn one-dniyaotidvdasohrta h tiueholder. conclusion. attitude the the is than longstanding 6 other a Section individuals about to counter-identity solution involving data a discovery.from provides this picture of so-called explanation resulting about principled the puzzle assumes a that that provide shows one can the 5 binding only Section se , 3 de Section is in discussed there accounts that three the the of and call that construal, I argue presents what re — 4 se/de readings Section de belief-self binding. between and se correlation counterfactual-self de unobserved on hitherto relies a the which for of call evidence one I readings, these what — readings of counter-identity two accounts describe with I reports 3 counterfactual Section In counterfactual-self in paper. this found of are focus the that are re. that de construal of se case de special a as se de not binding, interpretation se this de that to the argue appealing about shall by intuitions I now. captured our for best captures enough is This her. well be sentence to the like of she be meaning because would say it shoes, what Obama’s wondering and Michelle — is case? into the herself is putting this Sophia involving which event in worlds no are there surely — Sophia topic vexed what a to is according Obama that Obama is Barack different too, is she worlds What those imagines, Obama. in Michelle as as to much designates married as state in is belief world) Sophia’s actual that the worlds resemble for the entertaining candidates resemble is he (and Sophia whom world that to actual worlds respect counterfactual the with the has Rather, that actually to. imagine he married to than is her properties require would different This has Obama. Obama Barack Barack to married is Sophia that ining dsrbstetoapoce to approaches two the describes 2 Section follows. as structured is paper The in pronoun second the of construal salient most the On d. c. b. ohasy/lista h sMcel bm n h smridto married is she and Obama Michelle is Obama. Barack she to married that is says/claims she Sophia and Obama Michelle is Obama. she Barack that pretending to is married Sophia was she and Obama Michelle Obama. to was Barack she married that is wishing she is Sophia and Obama Michelle is Obama. she Barack that imagining is Sophia is ihleOaa hti ol enfrSpi ob Michelle be to Sophia for mean could it What Obama. Michelle edn,adthe and reading, er lcigeffects blocking re de belief-self 4 n osdr oeta challenge potential a considers and , edn.Idsrb he possible three describe I reading. (5a) eS Generalization Se De , Sophia (5a) ae Pearson Hazel sntimag- not is eot an reports I . early access ), ii e,t h , s (on its de h (2) , and the truth (9) alternatives), can be given in doxastic believe is a loathsome idiot]]. 1 he 5 , involving binding of the de se pronoun by 2 w [ 2 w λ 1 x λ CP : i . x is a loathsome idiot in w. it is compatible with what x believes in w for x to be y in w’}. w dedicated de se LFs λ w’, y x h λ = { = g , c x,w K , binding of the pronoun results in the CP being interpreted as a property (6) CP J We correspondingly have the semantics for The standard truth conditions of attitude reports require that the embedded clause In This provides an implementation of ’sLewis (1979) idea that to believe de se that conditions for the de se reading of (2) given in (10): function from individuals to functions fromthen worlds attitudinal to alternatives cannot truth be values (type worlds, as on a Hintikka attitudinalsemantics alternatives (Hintikka for de se belief,defined for as example follows: ( (8) Dox express a function that whenattitude applied holder returns to the each truth of value the 1. attitudinal If alternatives the of embedded the clause in a de se report is a story, Jonathan did not self-ascribe theascribed property it of to being the a individual that loathsome he idiot; was rather looking he at, not realizing that that individual rather than a proposition: (7) se reading) is as in (6). (6) Jonathan believes [ two broad approaches to howholds exactly that this there should are be implemented.an abstractor One in approach the leftillustrate periphery this, of I the shall complement assume clause anin (Chierchia extensional the1990). framework syntax where To as worlds unpronounced areindexed indexed represented abstraction elements operators (pronouns) higher that in are the bound structure. by Thus co- the LF for Counterfactual de se 2 Theories of de se construal In this section, I describe in greater detail the two different approaches2.1 to de se. De se binding view right now, then I self-ascribe the property of looking at a beautiful view. In our you are P is to self-ascribe the property P. If I believe that I am looking at a beautiful was him. Within the body of literature that posits de se binding in the grammar, we find 1969), but rather they are world-individual pairs — so-called ‘centred worlds’. The early access ol-niiulpisa eoe u t rtagmn snwasnec intension sentence a now is argument first its but before, as pairs world-individual hnen edfralmd btatri h ytx,adi id h ol and world the binds it and syntax), the in abstractor lambda a for need no (hence oilsrt hs ilasm o htwrdvralsaerpeetdnti the in not represented are variables world that now assume will I this, illustrate To iulcodnt hsrne vrtoeihbtnso oahnsble worlds belief Jonathan’s of inhabitants those over ranges thus coordinate vidual oahnsfrhmef h etnei orcl rdce ob as nted se de the on false be to predicted correctly is sentence indi- the The himself, w’. for Jonathan’s in idiot loathsome a is y w’, in y be could he believes, Jonathan (9) niiulprmtr nteitrrtto ucinfrteebde clause: embedded the (12) for function interpretation the on parameters individual over quantifier a is verb attitude an An of pairs. also such of pairs, but sets world-individual parameter, are then world intensions are sentence a indices and of Evaluation e). only (type not parameter furthermore, consists individual Suppose index function. evaluation interpretation the the 2010 ). on that parameter , 2007 a Stephenson as rather 2004, but PRO Nevinssyntax, for & entry (Anand lexical a effect positing same by the is achieves holder that attitude the of alternatives doxastic Jonathan’s of coordinate individual the over ranging alternatives. variable doxastic a as interpreted is PRO [ believes Jonathan (11) over:Chierchia abstracted this, obligatorily for is account To PRO se. that de the proposes interpreted position, unambiguously subject is in report PRO resulting element unpronounced the with complement infinitival of candidate a is that y does any to reading. Jonathan story, idiot loathsome our a in being Since of himself. property for the candidates ascribe be not to considers he that (10) codn to According nte a oesr htPOi on yteidvda oriaeo the of coordinate individual the by bound is PRO that ensure to way Another as LF same the essentially is This where Italian and German French, as such languages In J believe J J λ . (2) K :P P: c , K g , c h , ,x w, g K = ∈ c , g i λ D = w. h (10) e , h ∀ h s,t o vr ol-niiulpair world-individual every for , ii w’,y . CP λ :x x: ∈ i λ x 1 Dox ∈ λ w D 2 Jonathan,w e (6) . [w λ n ec eevstesm interpretation: same the receives hence and , :w w: 2 6 PRO salahoeiiti w’. in idiot loathsome a is y : 1 ∈ ob otsm idiot]]. loathsome a be to D s . h ∀ w’,y h w’,y ∈ i believe i Dox uhta o all for that such x,w ae Pearson Hazel a aean take can P(y)(w : 0 ) early access , 3 = i i w’, y w, x h , h , g , g , c c K K S de se as a special case of de re J The apparatus involved in 4 : : y is a loathsome idiot in w’ u,w that denies that putative puzzles about de Dox Jonathan,w i ∈ 7 Dox w’,y i ∈ ∀ h de se skepticism binds the world and individual parameters with iff w’,y PRO to be a loathsome idiot] ∀ h = 1 i CP iff believe w, x 1 h , g , = x c i K w, x h , g , c K Jonathan believes [ PRO u believes S b. Ralph believes that Ortcutt is not a spy. J J J If we heard these sentences out of the blue and took them to be true, then we The term ‘de se binding’ as used in this paper refers to a mechanism that results An attitude verb like has not been pursued inIn the this literature. paper, I focusas on it the has alternative strategy been that pursuedtradition I in and will the a refer linguistic philosophical to literature. tradition as However, therese of is are a anything close other connection thanenvironments between instances (Boër this of & a Lycan broader1980, phenomenonCappelen of & substitution Dever failure2013, inMagidor attitudinal 2015). properties to the same individual.the But two Quine sentences noticed are that true in even the though following Ralph scenario, I is set not aside the irrational: possibilityassigns of the deriving pronoun a the de individual se parameter construal as of its an semantic ordinary value; pronoun so via far a as lexical I entry know that such an approach the derivation of truth conditionsRemember for Quine’s de old re example: belief reports looks like(16) a good candidate. a. Ralph believes that Ortcutt is a spy. some other mechanism that is independently required. (15) in a pronoun being boundranged by over the by individual the coordinate attitude of verb,abstraction, the where or world-individual binding as pairs is a brought consequence about of either the by lexical lambda entry of that pronoun. is just such an element: (14) respect to which the embeddedof clause an is attitude interpreted. verb So is ifit assigned some the element will individual in be parameter the as interpreted scope itsdoxastic as semantic alternatives a of value, then the variable attitude ranging holder, over resulting in the de individual se coordinate truth of conditions. Anand the 2.2 De se as a special case of de re Counterfactual de se (13) would conclude that Ralph is irrational: his belief state seems to ascribe incompatible An alternative to de se binding is to ask whether de se construal can be derived via & Nevins 2004 and Stephenson 2007, 2010 propose that obligatorily controlled PRO 4 3 early access 5 ra ae y,adwa aeyu.Udryn h prahi h supinta o a only can you that assumption the is approach the Underlying you). have what and by’, paper a ‘read au fdfiiedsrpin aey niiulcnet.(o o,w a just can we now, (For concepts. individual namely, — descriptions definite of value (17) as sue htthe that assumed also that aside. 1968 and that Kaplan to, set reports. will relation belief I acquaintance however re some ‘vivid’, de sufficiently in of be stand conditions must you relations truth that acquaintance the individual in friend’, an reflected a about is from this belief about re ‘heard beach’, de the a attitude at have the (‘saw individual in that role about causal they belief a that a play assume that hold just individuals, Let’s to and are. coming holders relations holder attitude acquaintance acquaintance between exactly the holding what relations about on are say based to is much that have won’t concept I a by mediated are that holder attitude the on. so and hat’ brown the in between w’ by in holds R beach concept, the the at C(w’). of and domain holder the attitude in the w’ world mediating every this for play that that such C concepts The be moment.) must that a role although in individuals, amended to be worlds will from functions assumption semantic as the concepts as individual serve of that think objects of kinds the by mediated are Ortcutt about belief individuals; distinct to spy a the being ascribes not state and coherent. spy belief perfectly Ralph’s a Thus being pick world. of they actual properties though the even incompatible in worlds, individual belief Ralph’s same of the speaking, each out hat Roughly at brown beach. individuals the distinct the in at out in saw saw pick he saw he that that Ralph person person person the the not to the without that identical is simultaneously believe is beach hold not hat the can brown does facts at the he Ortcutt. These saw because is Ortcutt. he irrational is person that being person that person Ralph that (ii) the (ii) and that and spy believes spy a Ralph a is (i) hat because brown true the is in saw he that person h esnRlhswi h rw hat brown the in saw Ralph person the a htd erprsaed erprsabout reports re de are reports se de that was Lewis, on building idea, Reinhart’s re de Ralph’s of reports the of conditions truth the account, this to According Intuitively, o nwi u h e r n n h ae[enr Ortcutt].’ [Bernard same does the Ralph and Now one beach. are whom the men community, at the the once but except it of grey-haired seen know a pillar having not is a of there aware rather Also not as spy. is a Ralph Ralph is to he known here; suspects several vaguely enter Ralph glimpsed not man, that has need say Ralph we to whom which it hat on suffice brown circumstances a questionable in under man times certain a is ‘There sbsdo h cuitnerlto sea h ec’ htexpressed that beach’; the at ‘see relation acquaintance the on based is acquaintance-based (16a) stu nti iuto eas i ap eivsta the that believes Ralph (i) because situation this in true is 5 hstecnetepesdby expressed concept the Thus nta hr utb naqanac eainR relation acquaintance an be must there that in 8 and sbsdo h cuitnerlto ‘see relation acquaintance the on based is h esnRlhswa h beach the at saw Ralph person the h esnRlhsaw Ralph person the 1956:56) (Quine ae Pearson Hazel (16b) early access the state designates saw at the beach is a belief I Ralph believes that Ortcutt 9 , then we are clearly not entitled to conclude 6 We can then say that if C is an acquaintance-based quantifies — must be world-individual pairs, and not 7 believe that is in the domain of C, R holds between y and C(w’, y). If we are i as follows. w’, y h What is needed is to let the domain of acquaintance-based concepts be world- The first task is to determine what the attitudinal alternatives for de re belief are. that the theory sketched isanalysis the of correct de theory re of reports, de but re; maintain or that (ii) this accept does the not need entail for that centred de worlds in se an readings are in any sense It will suffice for theourselves purposes to a of particular this view paper on just the to compositional give semantics the thatAn derives truth anonymous them. conditions, reviewer For without suggests discussion, that committing see re once readings, one the concedes case that for centredface de worlds of se are this skepticism needed argument, (see to there footnote handle are 3) de two is options undermined. available It to seems the to upholder me of that de in se the skepticism: (i) deny concept that gives us accessas to the the guy individual he thatelements saw Ralph’s over in which the brownmerely hat, worlds. for We can example. then So stateis doxastic the a alternatives truth spy — conditions the of individual pairs, not worlds. concept, then there is an acquaintancepair relation R such that forto every capture world-individual the semantics ofsuitable de concept should re be belief the reports, attitude then holder’s included doxastic alternatives in — we the want domain a of a returned by the concept indesignate w’, with but the rather first those person individualsfor that pronoun. himself Ralph Such — is individuals precisely are prepared those just to individualsa Ralph’s designated centred candidates by world. the individual coordinate of man Ralph saw at thespy’. beach If is Ralph a did spy’, indeedse) but see that rather Ortcutt he ‘the at is the man Ronald beach,man and and Ralph in that saw addition some at he other thethat believes guy beach (de Ralph is is believes a Ralph, that spy and Ortcutt he is says a sincerely spy. This shows that in Ralph’s belief worlds One might have hoped (as treatingReinhart theseseems as to worlds, rather haveprevious than done) sub-section. appealing that But to one this the could will centred revertIn not worlds to Quine’s do, discussed scenario, for in the reasons the belief discussed of in Ralph’s (Anand in). 2006 virtue of which (16a) is true is not ‘the Counterfactual de se relation SELF. In order to seeconditions how for this de works, re we belief firstly reports. need to flesh out the truth (Charlow & Sharvit 2014, Cresswell & von Stechow 1982, Percus & Sauerland 2003a). w’, it is not Ralph himself who bears the acquaintance relation to the individual ‘special’, since on this view the role of centred worlds is not limited to deriving de se readings. 6 7 early access (18) hwhwd ecni eea etetda pca aeo er,w edt state to need we re, de report of belief case re (22) special de a arbitrary as an treated for be conditions general truth the in can se de how show that a believes C). not still to is (relative C Ralph false spy), (and be a Guy to is fact out hat brown turns in and a sentence is world in man actual saw that the he Ortcutt: which man of is the consisting in hat pair world brown the a the to In in applied saw Ralph. when Ralph Ortcutt that return man must the that C of fact truth the a the upon is that dependent C fact is acquaintance-based, the being captures to This addition Ortcutt. in of if only C case. to this respect in Ortcutt — about is (21) (20) (19) omc o h rt odtoso n atclrd eble eot nodrto order In report. belief re de particular one of conditions truth the for much So attitude reported the that individual the just is report re de a in res the Intuitively, ocp sa cuitnebsdcnetifteei nacquaintance an is there iff concept acquaintance-based an is C concept A n o all for and w Dox domain with w in x for u of concept reliable a is C concept A w in x holder attitude an for u res a of concept suitable a is C concept A oarsu. res a to P reports Let belief re de for conditions Truth y). C(w’, Reliability and y between w’ in pair holds world-individual R every C, of for domain that such R relation Acquaintance-based a is C is C (ii) (i) Suitability w’. every in for spy and a Ralph for Ortcutt of Dox concept domain with C spy concept a supplied is Ortcutt that believes Ralph φ earpr fable edb nattd odrxta srbsaproperty a ascribes that x holder attitude an by held belief a of report a be acquaintance-based φ reliable h ’ y w’, stu nwwt epc oacnetal upidcnetC concept supplied contextually a to respect with w in true is x,w ∈ i ∪ ocp fufrxi w. in x for u of concept { Dox h ,x w, ap eivsta rct saspy a is Ortcutt that believes Ralph x,w i } (’ )i nw’. in P is y) C(w’, : and ; iff 10 sacneto hti utbefrxin x for suitable is that u of concept a is C stu nwwt epc oacontextually a to respect with w in true is Ralph,w ap eivsta rct saspy a is Ortcutt that believes Ralph h ’ y w’, ∪ reliable { h φ ,Ralph w, ∈ i iff e sd htnow: that do us Let . (,x u = x) C(w, Dox ocp,adhnethe hence and concept, h ’ y w’, Ralph,w i } iff reliable i sasuitable a is C hti nthe in is that : ae Pearson Hazel stu with true is (’ )is y) C(w’, concept iff : early access } i , y is i that is i w’, y h w’, y w, Jonathan h h { 8 is that SELF is just ∪ (23) Jonathan,w is true in w with respect to a 11 that is a doxastic alternative of the attitude in the domain of C, C(w’, y) = y. If C takes i i iff for every world-individual pair is a loathsome idiot w’, y i h w’, y , if the concept with respect to which the sentence is h : C(w’, y) is a loathsome idiot in w’. (24) , let’s assume that the sentence is assigned the following (i) x is sentient in w and (ii) x = y. (2) iff with itself. The idea underlying the definition in Jonathan,w together with the definition of SELF entails that if C is a SELF- believes that he Dox i (24) SELF-based concept i ∈ acquainted C is a concept of Jonathan that is suitable for Jonathan in w and for all w’, y h in the domain of C, SELF holds between y and C(w’, y) in w’. Jonathan contextually supplied concept C with domainiff Dox SELF SELF(x, y, w) SELF-based concept C is a Given the definition in We can then define a notion of SELF-based concept as follows. Notice that According to the view that we are considering, a de se belief report is just a de This is slightly different fromthat the SELF(x, usual y, definition w) of holds SELF, onlythat in if identity as x is much is not as sentient. actually Icertainly Typically, an have SELF not added acquaintance is the relation: defined condition this simply pen asthat in identity, acquaintance but my relation notice hand that is all identicalbeing sentient to sentient. individuals itself hold I but towards thank it themselves Frank simply is Sode in for virtue discussion of of this point. binding and de se-as-de reof routes the derive equivalent de truth se-as-de conditions. re On route the presented version here, the SELF acquaintance relation that is evaluated is SELF-based, then the sentenceand is he true is just Jonathan in and casea (ii) (i) loathsome at Jonathan idiot each is in of sentient w’. Jonathan’sequivalent doxastic Setting to alternatives aside the the truth trivially conditions satisfied assignedSection condition to2.1. in the (i), dedicated this de is se LF postulated in 2.3 Comparison of the two approaches as an argument a centredholder, world it will return thethe attitude de holder’s ‘doxastic se centre’ ‘construal’ y. of Tointerpretation: see how this derives (25) (24) based concept, then for every the acquaintance relation SELF, where SELF is(23) defined as follows. Counterfactual de se re belief report whose truth is evaluated with respect to a concept C that is based on At least as far as belief reports go, it seems that one can conclude that the de se 8 early access .I a esndta fd ea-er steol ot od ecntul n if and construal, se de to route only the is re se-as-de de if that reasoned was It 1990). ihntv paeshssonta h supinta oohrcpoon cannot pronouns logophoric that assumption the that shown has speakers native with a nyb er sflei h irrsituation. mirror the in false as heard be only can (26) 2)Jh eivdPOt ealahoeidiot. loathsome a be to PRO believed John (26) reports; belief re de of analysis the for needed machinery independently grammatical is only awareness on the the depends that satisfy it advantage is not that the that does sentence has attitude a reported approach be the This will where condition. result situation the a supplied. then contextually in concept, instead false SELF-based is judged a which picks C, context variable the with the concept Rather, underdetermined the If grammar. are of reports value the re the by de to to respect imposed assigns not grammar is the that interpretation interpretations se de for responsible rfre ntegonsta tprisartr otetaiinlapoc ocontrol, to approach traditional the to return a permits it that grounds the on preferred view latter the for argument undermined. the is then control binding, conditionally obligatory se truth from de is belief through interpretation re arising resulting de that the holder’s to that attitude equivalent correct the are mediate they presuppositional can If or that herself. conditional concepts about truth of a kind is the PRO the on for approaches, constraint reading these re On de 2014). a Santorio of 2015, (Schlenker unavailability 2018, concepts Landau SELF-based 2011 , to restriction Maier itself the 2003, grammar imposes the context where the work thought. than of previously rather lines (Pearson was developed se than Ewe have de restricted authors unambiguously language more several of be African Secondly, array may West the language the that natural least for in at expressions least suggests at This 2016 ). incorrect, O’Neill is 2012, re de read be 2003). 2002, Stechow von 1999, Schlenker read 2002, unambiguously 2001, are (Heim provide that se to expressions de thus overt have and were PRO, languages — controlled some holder obligatorily that attitude evidence of the denote counterparts obligatorily overt and be verb to attitude taken oc- an of only scope can the that in forms cur pronominal dedicated — pronouns logophoric Furthermore, as such languages in where 1990): Italian Chierchia and 1970, French that (Morgan German, expression se se an de de of report read example only unambiguously classic can is the that is reports PRO attitude controlled generate Obligatorily to attitudes. should itself we grammar then the supplied, expect contextually not is relation acquaintance SELF (Chierchia the se furthermore de read unambiguously are that expressions anaphoric that of simply existence is it themselves. to free: bear for individuals come sentient to all assumed that been relation acquaintance generally has relation SELF the utemr,Lna rusta es-sd eteteto R st be to is PRO of treatment re se-as-de de a that argues Landau Furthermore, fieldwork Firstly, arisen. have view this to challenges significant two Recently, the was needed is binding se de that argument important an recently, Until believe 12 sacnrlpeiae h onepr of counterpart the predicate, control a is ae Pearson Hazel early access 10 the 9 , this presupposition (27a) carries the presupposition that she refers to Ivanka. A scenario in which 13 is understood as referring to Melania; (27b) she , so that is First Lady. On a natural reading of She gave an interview as First Lady imagine she Ivanka imagined that she was Melaniaas and First she Lady. was giving an interview Ivanka imagined that she was Melaniaas and First she Daughter. was giving an interview b. might be judged true, for example, is one where Ivanka wonders what it is The sentence In response to the challenge presented by de se-as-de re analyses of PRO (which First Lady, and Ivanka Trump is First Daughter. like for Melania to watch her (Ivanka) givingActually, the an account interview, that and will imagines benot herself defended refer as in at all, this but paperto rather has indicate is as the a a reading bound consequence that variable. thatpronoun I I the is am shall pronoun referential interested continue does in in; to any these useI technical terms the assume sense. are terms that not ‘refer’ the intended and world to ‘pick is signal out’ the that way the that use it of is the at the time of writing: Melania Trump is the United States the referent of projects across sentence reports Ivanka’s imaginingLikewise, herself, on a as natural Melania, reading giving of an interview. from that of pronouns thatpropose a are descriptive ambiguous generalization between (‘the ain De de Se this Generalization’) se domain, to and and capture argue dediscovery, the that it re facts in is construal. order necessary I to to posit provide de a se principled binding. explanation of this 3 Counterfactual attitudes with counter-identity 3.1 Introduction Consider the following pair of sentences. (27) a. this respect since for them too, PRO is not boundcould by potentially the controller. also be appliedshifted to indexicals), I other shall unambiguously present debiguously novel se de data elements se concerning expressions the such in interpretation as counterfactual of attitude unam- reports with counter-identity. PRO, which begs the questionas of its controller. how According PRO to comesfeature Landau, to there transmission bear is from the no controller adequate same tothe way phi-features PRO left of if periphery implementing PRO of is thedirectly. bound infinitive I itself by take it rather an that than abstractorAnand being in & bound’ Nevins by and the’sStephenson controller accounts fare no better in Counterfactual de se out that de se binding breaks the traditional dependency between the controller and The interpretation of these expressions in these environments differs systematically (27b) whereby PRO is bound by the controller. Focusing on ’sChierchia approach, he points 9 10 early access ewl edasmnisfor semantics a need will We ’ n steihbtn fw htxiaie esl ob.Hr stelexical the is Here be. to herself imagines x that w’ of inhabitant the is y and w’, oti usinms ecmail ihwa skonaotd ecntulin construal re de about known is what with compatible be must question this to own her about mistaken not the is the construal person Ivanka latter former the that the or assume call is, (I will she is I that identity.) she imagines that holder believes attitude the she who that person the either that to seems refers It event. an such watching Melania (29) entry. world- those are as alternatives to pairs imagination refer x’s individual shall holder I attitude case an this speaking, in Roughly which worlds, centred of set for discussed that to treatment 2008 ) (Ninan re de counterfactual of puzzle The 3.2 4. Section Se principled (28) De a the provides call first I the which only generalization, that empirical Generalization: argue of unnoticed shall hitherto source a I the while of not. binding, explanation on do se third views de and on possible second relies three first the The consider readings. I belief-self and Then, counterfactual-self sub-section. next with reconcilable the be in should it particular, so-called in the attitudes; counterfactual of scope the o otecutrata-efadteble-efraig rs?A answer An arise? readings belief-self the and counterfactual-self the do How h miia vdnefrteD eGnrlzto sstoti ealin detail in out set is Generalization Se De the for evidence empirical The hr Imagine Where ob nw’} in y be to x (ii) ∈ J se De (i) Generalization Se De The imagine Imagine belief-self hni a eev ihracutrata-efo eifsl edn in reading reading, belief-self de counter-identity. a a with or and counterfactual-self reports se counterfactual a de either a receive between can ambiguous it is then anaphor or pronoun a counter- If with cannot reports it counterfactual then in se, identity. de reading read belief-self unambiguously a is receive anaphor or pronoun a If mgn fis attempt) (first imagine uzeo onefculd re de counterfactual of puzzle K h c x,w ’ y w’, , g , h ,x w, P(y)(w’) : construal. x,w i i uhta hs hnsta mgnst etu r rein true are true be to imagines x that things those that such = { = λ h P imagine ’ y w’, : believe P i ∈ : D o o,Iwl ipygv hsvr parallel a verb this give simply will I now, For . ti optbewt htxiaie nwfor w in imagines x what with compatible is it h ti unie vreeet facertain a of elements over quantifier a is it : e , 14 h s,t ii . counterfactual-self she .Idsrb hspuzzle this describe I 2008). (Ninan λ x : nteesnecsi miuu:it ambiguous: is sentences these in x ∈ D e mgnto alternatives imagination . λ w : osra,adthe and construal, w ∈ D ae Pearson Hazel s . h ∀ w’,y i . }, early access i } i i w, Ralph w’, y h h { ∪ w, Ralph h is a suitable { ∪ Ralph,w BEACH Ralph,w is a suitable concept of C(w’, y) is P in w’. C is a concept of u that is is true in w with respect to a x,w iff (Based on Ninan 2008, 2012) (first attempt) } BEACH i that is in Imagine i w, x h { in Imagine ∪ w’, y i h 15 x,w w’, y h that has the following properties: is true in w with respect to a contextually supplied φ BEACH (w’, y) at the beach in w’. (Since if C is true in the situation that we are considering, then the C(w’, y) isn’t at the beach in w’. (32) BEACH (w, Ralph) = Ortcutt (Since if C Ralph,w be a report of an imagining by an attitude holder x that ascribes a BEACH φ concept of Ortcutt for Ralph, thenC it must be acquaintance-based.) Ortcutt for Ralph, then it must be a reliable concept of Ortcutt.) For every world-individual pair y sees C C is a concept of Ortcutt that is suitable for Ralph in w and for all b. Ralph is imagining that Ortcutt isn’tcontextually at supplied the concept beach C withiff domain Imagine suitable for x in w and for all Truth conditions for de re imaginationLet reports property P to a resconcept u. C with domain Imagine in Imagine Furthermore, if Since the only acquaintance relation that Ralph bears to Ortcutt is the ‘sees at the Suppose that there is only one way in which Ralph is acquainted with Ortcutt: he The strategy gives rise to a puzzle, which Ninan describes by inviting us to What about de re imagination? While studies of the semantics of de re reports (33) a. following must be true. beach’ relation, then if (32) is to stand a chance of being true it must be interpreted that have this property in whichmoment the at sentence which is Ralph true. seesimagines Indeed, that Ortcutt this the may at guy be the he the beach;sentence is exact if as looking at at true. is Yet that given at very (30), home moment, the watching truth(32) Ralph TV, then conditions we for can (31) judge should the be as follows. consider the following sentence. (31) Ralph is imagining that Ortcutt isn’t at the beach. sees him at the beach. It seems that we can conceive of perfectly sensible situations analysis can carry over toand other attempt attitude to predicates. give Suppose schematic we truthon adopt conditions those this for for strategy, de de re re imagination belief reports, reports(30) based given in Section 2.2 above: Counterfactual de se have typically focused on de re belief, it seems to have been tacitly assumed that the with respect to a concept C 12 11 early access oetiaie htOtuti o ttebah hth mgnsi o impossible. not is imagines he something same what imagining beach, the the is at at he and not that beach is is, the Ortcutt that at that — imagines Ortcutt beach moment sees the Ralph at when not intuitively, Yet is impossible. beach the at sees he (34) de o xlctyrsrc h oano h ocp sIhv oehr,i epn ihthe paper. with this keeping in in adopted here, is done that have reports I the re as de in concept of example, the semantics for of the 2015). domain of role, Maier the formulation a 1992, restrict (Heim play explicitly question not to in does argued verbs Ninan been the as of has properties such property projection attitudes, This presupposition certain 2011). of Yanovich interpretation relative2008, the something Ninan that imagine is to means idea it basic what imagine The of alternative. question doxastic the some detail in to examining from refrain will I follows: as stated be then (35) can reports to imagination relative re imagines de holder pair, for attitude the conditions the of member what second with the compatible and is holder, attitude the of alternative doxastic by worlds over is centred quantified This alternatives of holder. entertained attitudinal attitude is the the what treating of that by alternatives sense modeled doxastic the the in to states, relative belief counterfactual acts that to is assumption relative the always two is are the point imagining of starting of Ninan’s one 2008. adopt Ninan shall in I considered concreteness, solutions For 2011). Yanovich , 2012 2008, in Ninan property that have lack can but arises. individual worlds, contradiction an belief no that Ralph’s then grant in worlds, we beach imagination If the his beach. at the being at of isn’t property beach the the at looking is he his not holder, beach attitude the need of reports Intuitively, alternatives imagination alternatives. doxastic re imagination the de to of anchored conditions be truth somehow the to mediate replacing that in and concepts did reports the I belief that as re alternatives de imagination for with conditions alternatives truth doxastic the adopting simply by stated h esni httetuhcniin o er mgnto eot antbe cannot reports imagination re de for conditions truth the that is lesson The But 2011 , (Anand market the on idea this of implementations various are There stu norseai eas ap siaiigta h a he man the that imagining is Ralph because scenario our in true is w”. h ∀ utbefrxi n o all for and w in x for Dox suitable domain with C u. concept res a to P property Let reports imagination 2008): re Ninan de for conditions Truth , wish (33a) ’ y w’, φ and earpr fa mgnn ya tiuehle htacie a ascribes that x holder attitude an by imagining an of report a be and ∈ i want hh Imagine (34) 12 ’ y w’, 2015, Maier 1992 , Heim 2011, (Anand base modal doxastic a on parasitic is onl nalta ap siaiigta h esnthat person the that imagining is Ralph that entail jointly i , h Ralph,w ” z w”, φ stu nwwt epc oacnetal supplied contextually a to respect with w in true is ii C : hr h rtmme ftepair, the of member first the where , hh x,w BEACH ’ y w’, ap siaiigta rct s’ tthe at isn’t Ortcutt that imagining is Ralph ∪ 16 { i h , w,y s’ ttebahi w’. in beach the at isn’t y) (w’, ,x w, h ” z w”, i } ii iff nImagine in sacneto htis that u of concept a is C rvsdvrin ae on based version, (revised (30) h x,w ’ y w’, nta,i seems it Instead, . imagine (’ )i in P is y) C(w’, i . believes ae Pearson Hazel 11 h ’ y w’, h truth The spairs as h ” z w”, i sa is , that i early access , ii ii C is a w”, z w”, z h iff h , i , } i i w’, y w, x h w’, y hh { hh and it is compatible ∪ x,w x,w is true in w with respect to Dox reading); on the most natural reading). Ninan 2008 provides i ∈ for x to be z in w”} i refers to the speaker. , to maintain the idea that it is a w’, y me (Based on Ninan 2008: pages 44-45) h given world knowledge, the second w’, y : h (Ninan 2008: 25, ex 5a; based on Lakoff 1970) ii belief-self imagine 17 (37a) w”, z h , i counterfactual-self w’, y hh = { C(w’, y) isn’t at the beach in w”. refers to Brigitte Bardot and x,w I , it refers to Ivanka (the Ralph,w (37b) only if for all of Ralph’s imagination alternatives Ivanka imagined that she was Melaniaas and First she Lady. was giving an interview Ivanka imagined that she was Melaniaas and First she Daughter. was giving an interview 13 (w’, y) isn’t at the beach in w” — that is, if the individual that Ralph believes b. Ralph is imagining that Ortcutta isn’t contextually at supplied the concept beach Cconcept with of domain Dox Ortcutt that isin suitable Imagine for Ralph in w and for all with what x imagines in w relative to Where Imagine BEACH We will need a semantics for de se On the most natural construal of According to the revised truth conditions, the sentence is true with respect BEACH quantifier over pairs of centred worlds: (i) I’m imagining that I am Brigitte Bardot and that I am kissing me. construal of an account of the counterfactual-selfarises and via belief-self readings de whereby se theconstrual. binding, former and the latter arises via de se as a special case of de re pronoun refers to Melania (the On the intended reading, to be the guy heRalph sees counterfactually at entertains the (relative beach to issucceeded what not in he at stating believes) the is truth beach true. conditions atthe We that those have sentence. match worlds now With our in this intuitions which background about what incounterfactual-self the place, and meaning I belief-self of now readings proceed arise. to the question of how 3.3 First account: De se bindingRecall & our de pair se-as-de of re counterfactual (Ninan reports: 2008) (37) a. to C C (36) Counterfactual de se The correct truth conditions for (31) are given in (36). 13 Ninan’s core evidence for the existence of the counterfactual-self/belief-self ambiguity is (i). 15 14 early access udrnra icmtne,Iak)i iiga interview. an giving is Ivanka) circumstances, normal (under (39) 4)Iak siaiig[ interview. imagining an is giving Ivanka is she and) Melania (40) is she (that imagining is Ivanka (39) (38) fted ebnigve hr h rnu sbudb abaabstractor. lambda version a the by to bound attention is my complete pronoun confine the a I where but bound. pronouns, view overt se binding sentence, with de se the only also de of concerned is the moment conjunct of portion the first this for the for am of subject I semantics the Since the that give it have not would do representation I shoes. Melania’s in in be parentheses to in material herself The believes she that imagination individual Ivanka’s the that of imagining each is Ivanka case that in say just to SELF-based, just true is be and Ivanka to for out suitable alternatives is turns that sentence Ivanka the of C then concept that pick we If concept: (42) SELF-based a to respect with re counter- de holder with attitude the is. report that she counterfactual individual that a etc.) the claims in out pretends, picking bound (wishes, as se imagines construed de be is will it pronoun identity, a counterfactual-self. the if is, general, that — In Melania be must Given alternatives interview. imagination an Ivanka’s giving in is parentheses be in to material herself the imagines she that individual the ternatives, pair: world (41) this and of individual member the second to the applied is of clause coordinates embedded by over the quantified by worlds expressed centred property of pair ordered the of sasge otesnec n(39). in sentence the to assigned is (40) in LF se de the Suppose asmsta h rnu sconstrued is pronoun the that assumes Ninan reading, belief-self the derive To member first the pronoun, bound se de a of interpretation the of purposes the For stu rdce ob ugdtu uti aea aho vnasiaiainal- imagination Ivanka’s of each at case in just true judged be to predicted thus is y J se De otxulysple ocp ihdmi Dox domain with iff C interview concept an supplied giving contextually is a she that imagining is Ivanka w”. in J se De Imagine (39) i , sacneto vnata ssial o vnai n o all for and w in Ivanka for suitable is that Ivanka of concept a is C h ” z w”, K hh c mgn fia version) (final imagine mgn fia version) (final imagine , g ’ y w’, = K ii c λ , g w. nImagine in = i , λ hh ∀ h :P P: ” z w”, ’ y w’, (39) CP ii ∈ Ivanka,w eeyetbihstecneta n hr vnapt herself puts Ivanka where one as context the establishes merely (39) i λ , ssc htyi iiga neve nw.Ti is This w”. in interview an giving is y that such is D h x h ” z w”, 1 e n hti h niiulcodnt foeof one of coordinate individual the is that y any , , λ h s,t w (’ )i iiga neve nw”. in interview an giving is y) C(w’, ii hh ∀ i∈ ii 2 . [w 18 λ ’ y w’, :x x: 2 Imagine she i 1 , ∈ sgvn ninterview]] an giving is h ” z w”, D Ivanka,w e . λ imagine i∈ ii :w w: stu nwwt epc to respect with w in true is : Ivanka,w Imagine sgvn ninterview an giving is z ∈ sa dewel the wheel; idle an is D ∪ s 14,15 . x,w { h ae Pearson Hazel ,Ivanka w, P(z)(w”) : hh w’, i } early access } x,w Imagine C(w’, y) is P in C(w”, z) is P in ii ∈ must be the only x,w x,w w”, z (44) h , i C is a concept of u that is C is a concept of u that is in Imagine in Imagine w’, y iff iff ii ii hh } } i i w”, z w”, z : it is compatible with what x believes h h w, x w, x , h , ii h i i { { such that 19 can be true in a situation where Ralph only ∪ ∪ i w”, z w’, y w’, y h , x,w x,w hh hh i (43) w’, y h : is true in w with respect to a contextually supplied is true in w with respect to a contextually supplied i w’, y φ φ hh . What if in addition to the reading on which the concept w”, z = { h x,w (43) = { there is some x,w for x to be z in w”} i be a report of an imagining by an attitude holder x that ascribes a be a report of an imagining by an attitude holder x that ascribes a φ φ w’, y h Let property P to a resconcept u. C with domainsuitable Img for x in w and for all suitable for x in w and for all in w for x to beto y in w’, and it is compatible with what x imagines in w relative Let property P to a resconcept u. C with domain Dox w”. w”. Where Img Where Imagine But nothing in the data described so far requires that Ninan’s view is essentially that de se binding and de se-as-de re come apart in doxastic alternatives, there is athe second centred reading worlds where that that are conceptaddition compatible to is with (44), anchored what the to he grammar imagines? also That generates is,(45) the what following if truth in conditions: available reading for that mediates the reported de re imagination is anchored to the attitude holder’s Ralph is imagining something impossible,the Ninan truth proposed conditions a in semantics (44) that to assigns de(43) re imagination reports. Ralph is imagining that Ortcutt isn’t(44) at the beach. consider two such accounts. 3.4 Second account: Anchoring Self-based conceptsRecall to that counterfactual in worlds order tobears explain the why ‘sees at the beach’ acquaintance relation to Ortcutt without it following that self reading, while the latternot gives rise an to argument the that belief-self webinding, reading. need we This de need on se to its binding, show own thatbe is however. In an preferred order account to along to an the argue accountthe lines for that counterfactual-self of de reading’sNinan does se proposal by not is other rely to means. on In de the se next two binding, sub-sections, but I rather shall derives Counterfactual de se counterfactual reports with counter-identity: the former gives rise to the counterfactual- 6Itaka nnmu eiwrfrrmnigm fti case. this of me reminding for reviewer anonymous an thank I 16 early access ejudge We hr h ocp sacoe oteattd odrsiaie olsrte than rather worlds imagined holder’s attitude the to anchored is concept the where ” i)frevery for (iv) w”; i)Rlhse (,Rlh naigaon ntewtrrn;(i)frevery for (iii) waterfront; the on around sneaking Ralph) C(w, sees Ralph (ii) y esl ob dnia o—MlnaTupi h xmlsudrconsideration. under examples the in imagines Trump holder Melania attitude — to the identical that be individual to that herself to in given ascribed SELF-based reports is a imagination property to re relevant respect de the with for re that reading de say the construed to on are enough concept, examples be these would It in reading. pronouns counterfactual-self the the generate to order in aecssweetecneti nhrdt h onefculwrd fe l.Here all. example: after his worlds of counterfactual version the modified) to (slightly anchored a is is concept the where cases date relevant the whatever (or attitude worlds the are). imagination to worlds her anchored counterfactual to the be not that must and res hence worlds, the and belief in of holder’s reports, conditions interpretation imagination truth the re the mediates de yet that that for shows and concept conditions above, this scenario truth that the possible it in take not met I are is false. conditions judged these is of sentence Each the w”. in water the into conditions: truth predicted the (47) examining by checked be can as true, this establish (46) to order in example following the offers point: 2012 Ninan worlds. belief her i , h h ak hn st hwta hr sn edn fd eiaiainreports imagination re de of reading no is there that show to is then, task, The binding se de to appeal to necessary be not would it then case, the were this If rnvAad(.. onsot oee,ta tmyb eesr oaccommo- to necessary be may it that however, out, points (p.c.) Anand Pranav Ortcutt; = Ralph) C(w, (i) if: only and if C to respect with true is sentence The ” z w”, 16 se naigaon ntewtrrn’rlto.Rlhiaie hth sees he that imagines Ralph relation. waterfront’ the on around sneaking ‘sees notewtri w”. in water the into Img all domain for with C water concept supplied the contextually into ∪ a body to a respect dumping with Ortcutt w saw in he that imagining is Ralph water. the into body a dumping Ortcutt saw he that imagining water. is the individualRalph that into that body and a waterfront, dumping the is on around the sneaking via individual is unique Ortcutt a with acquainted is Ralph which in way only The Scenario: { ii (46) h ,Ralph w, nImagine in hh as nti cnro u h eatc bv ol rdc tt be to it predict would above semantics the but scenario, this in false ’ y w’, hh i ’ y w’, } i , iff Ralph,w h ” z w”, i sacneto rct hti utbefrRlhi and w in Ralph for suitable is that Ortcutt of concept a is C , h ” z w”, esCw,z naigaon ntewtrrn in waterfront the on around sneaking z) C(w”, sees z , ii nImagine in ii nImagine in 20 Ralph,w Ralph,w esCw,z upn body a dumping z) C(w”, sees z (” )i upn body a dumping is z) C(w”, , 02,e 21) ex 20–21, 2012: (Ninan (45) nti construal, this On . ae Pearson Hazel Ralph,w strue is False hh (45) w’, early access 21 is being construed epistemically here, and such a con- is not evidence that concepts are sometimes anchored to could (48) is indeed being construed as meaning roughly ‘for all you knew’, here, If Democrats had won thebeen last liberals. few presidential elections, we might have (Nunberg 1993:14, ex 18) a. We might haveb. been liberals. Scenario: Bill and Mary are discussing Sue’s surprise party in loud voices. John: Hey. Lower your voices. I could have been Sue! John: Hey. Look through the keyhole first. Imagine if I were a robber! They do not realize it,Thankfully, but it’s someone John, is not standing Sue. on the other side of the door. could We find further examples involving modal quantification without any attitude in If Perhaps, though, I agree that the reading is there, but it does not seem to me to be a genuine de re I take it thencounterfactual that worlds in counterfactual reports. acquaintance-based. Nunberg 1993: (51) Justice O’Connor (a Republican Supreme Court Justice): time that is inacquaintance the relation — past, Bill and not MarySo the did the present. not pronoun know But that in at anyoneof these was that some cases standing time, there. seems sort — there to ‘II was be (the (the no interpreted person person via relevant at at an the the individual door) door) concept could had have been been a robber’, Sue’ but or the ‘Imagine concept if in question is not then any acquaintaince relation should be anchored to the past knowing time — a strual permits acquaintance-based concepts tosomething sneak in, like so ‘For that all the you sentence means knew (at thescenario moment so when that you there opened is no the relevant door),(50) acquaintance I relation available: For one thing, themodals: relevant construal also occurs in(49) the scope of John: non-attitudinal Hey. Look through the keyhole first. I could have been a robber! On the relevant reading, John isproperties not that inviting he Bill actually to has imaginethat (namely, that the that John person he has he is different heard a ring robber), the but doorbell rather had to inreading imagine fact in turned the out sense to of be a a reading robber. that is mediated by an acquaintance-based concept. Counterfactual de se (48) Scenario: Bill opens the door without looking, to find John on the other side. (the person who you heard ring the doorbell) was a robber’. But we can adapt the early access ain fd re de of variant owihtesnec seautdi EFbsd fs,te h rma ol be schema: would following grammar the (52) the to then conforming so, conditions If truth SELF-based. generate respect is to with evaluated able concept is the sentence and the holder counterfactual attitude which in the to worlds denotes counterfactual res the to when anchored namely, be reports: can concepts where case one osdraantesmnisfrd eiaiainrprsta eaeassuming. are we that reports imagination (54) re de for semantics the again Consider functions Identification account: Third 3.5 that readings belief-self and examine. counterfactual-self to to Before like approach Generalization. should third Se I an a De such is the that there for 4.3 so, explanation doing Section principled a in on give argue arise to truth that shall fails such those account I generate directly exactly Instead, would are cannot reading. that question it counterfactual-self imagine in conditions of Still, the truth variant cases? the re all, other de after no in conditions: is not holder there but attitude that the shown SELF-based, is be is res the concept when the worlds counterfactual and to anchored be to concepts view. Ninan’s on the as picking holder, by attitude arise will reading belief-self the Melania; to referring as construed (53) follows: as binding, tl,oemgtfe nlndt aeabuefresiuainta hr sa least at is there that stipulation force brute a make to inclined feel might one Still, hsacuti ditdyrte naifig h hudi epsil for possible be it should why unsatisfying: rather admittedly is account This be will pronoun the Melania, is she that imagining is Ivanka where context a In se de to appeal without generated, be will reading counterfactual-self the Then hr Img Where y Imagine ocp ihdmi Dox domain with C concept x. to P property Let C C interview concept an supplied giving contextually is the she that imagining is Ivanka all for and w in x for suitable is Imagine that x of concept C concept x. to P property Let i SELF , h φ φ ” z w”, earpr fa mgnn ya tiuehle htacie a ascribes that x holder attitude an by imagining an of report a be earpr fa mgnn ya tiuehle htacie a ascribes that x holder attitude an by imagining an of report a be sacneto vnata ssial o vnai n o all for and w in Ivanka for suitable is that Ivanka of concept a is x,w x,w imagine ii SELF x,w } (” )i nw”. in P is z) C(w”, nImagine in { = ihdmi Img domain with h φ φ htacostecnett h oatcatraie fthe of alternatives doxastic the to concept the anchors that ” z w”, stu nwwt epc otecnetal supplied contextually the to respect with w in true is supplied contextually the to respect with w in true is x,w i hr ssome is there : (” )i iiga neve nw”. in interview an giving is z) C(w”, x,w ∪ x,w 22 { SELF h ∪ ,x w, { h ’ y w’, h ihdmi Img domain with ,x w, i } iff i i } uhthat such sacneto htis that u of concept a is C iff stu nwwt epc to respect with w in true is C SELF hh ’ y w’, hh ’ y w’, x,w saSELF-based a is i ∪ , i ae Pearson Hazel , h { ” z w”, h h ” z w”, ,x w, i hh ii i∈ ii } w’, iff in early access ∪ Ivanka,w Ivanka,w is true in w C(w’, z) is P in .) In principle, in in Imagine x,w ii e ii , i C is a concept of u that s,e w”, z iff h hh , e, in Imagine id i h g ii w’, y This would yield a construal that is w”, z hh 17 h , i 23 has the latitude to map the individual that an w’, y id hh g for our purposes is that it maps an inhabitant of the id g . Setting aside the technical details of Yanovich’s proposal in id . If in addition } and an identification function g id i g into the semantics yields the following truth conditions: id g (C(w’, y))(w”, z) is giving an interview as First Lady in w”. w, Ivanka id h is suitable for Ivanka in w and for all Ivanka is imagining (that sheFirst is Lady. Melania and) she is giving an interview as Ivanka is imagining that she is giving an interview as First Lady g suitable for x in w and for all with respect to a contextually supplied concept C with domain Dox w”. { Since I am continuing to consider strategies for defending the view that de se-as- An important property of this semantics that I have been ignoring up until now is (56) de re can do anything thatresults de from se picking binding a can SELF-based do,Ivanka concept I believes as (de will the focus se) value on that of the shefirst C. interpretation is argument Then that Ivanka, of assuming this that is the individual that is supplied as the Incoporating in the relevant counterfactual worlds.a (It counterfactual is report of with type the counteridentity individual the that function the might, attitudethat when holder she believes applied counterfactually herself to supposes to that be,equivalent she return to is. that that individual obtained by deas se an binding. example. To see this, take our(55) First Lady sentence the attitude holder’s doxastic alternatives (Yanovich form2011). of His a solution function takes the full, the crucial property of attitude holder’s doxastic alternatives (thatthe is, de an re individual concept obtained to by the applying doxastic alternative) to a correspondent of that individual those she has in thedoxastic belief alternatives, worlds; but for not instance, aton Ortcutt his the is puzzle imagination at of alternatives. the counterfactual In beachidentifying’s deYanovich individuals at work re, across Ralph’s he worlds argues — that thatcounterfactual is, this of worlds necessitates determining corresponds a who method to in of the the relevant individual that the concept supplies at that it entails that insome the property worlds P w’ holds in which ofcentred what an world the individual whose attitude that world holder is coordinate imagines obtainedthat is is by the distinct true, applying individual from a in w’. concept question Moreover, C the has to properties in a the counterfactual worlds will be different from Counterfactual de se 17 I thank Igor Yanovich for discussion of this point. 18 early access ehv encnieigtefloigpi fsentences. of pair following the considering been have We hni ae eudv opeet si elkon uhue iers oan to rise give uses such well-known, is as complement: gerundive a takes it when htsc otx srqie for required is context a such That 5)a. (57) I Part 4.1 Generalization Se De The 4 generalization. of this explanation for principled a Generalization. provide Se to De fails the worlds, counterfactual binding. to se concepts de based by obtained that to alternatives equivalent then is imagination is, Ivanka’s result she The in that Melania. plugging imagines returns consideration, she that under individual context the the to in is she that believes holder attitude onefculd ei h rtpae fs,te n opttrt h iwavctdi hspaper this in advocated me. view for the better to the of competitor much treatment one so a then away; in so, right figure If eliminated need place. be function first can identification the an in imagine that re assumption cannot de the counterfactual you reject but may one dead, course, are Of you that imagine can you reading: of properties experiential interpretive peculiar the with do to something have could PRO but reading, counterfactual-self the reading. has PRO belief-self lacks: the PRO not that reading Daughter.’ a First has as pronoun interview an was giving Melania was and — Melania Melania as was — what we she she that that and if is, imagined Daughter that rescued ‘Ivanka First — Daughter like, be First something can is is sentence Melania meant that is The Daughter, imagining world. First is is Ivanka the Melania that about that assume presuppose knowledge to our seems to it strange: contrary little a is hand, other a. (58) Iwl ru htti rpsl ietepooa oaco SELF- anchor to proposal the like proposal, this that argue will I 4.3 Section In o,oemgtssetta hscnrs ewe h riaypoonand pronoun ordinary the between contrast this that suspect might one Now, (58a) PRO: with pronoun second the replace we when happens what consider Now .? b. b. spretyacpal n en ogl h aeas same the roughly means and acceptable perfectly is vnaiaie R en eai n R iiga neve as interview an giving PRO Daughter. and First Melania being PRO imagined as Ivanka interview an giving PRO Lady. and First Melania being PRO imagined Ivanka interview an giving was Daughter. she First and as Melania was she that imagined Ivanka interview an giving was Lady. she First and as Melania was she that imagined Ivanka 18 eoedigs,Isalpeetteeprclevidence empirical the present shall I so, doing Before (58b) 24 u o for not but (57b) hw htteovert the that shows (57a) . (58b) ae Pearson Hazel imagine nthe on , early access 25 Ivanka claimed that she wasas Melania First and Daughter. she had just given an interview Ivanka claimed PRO to be Melania and PRO to have just givenIvanka an claimed inter- PRO to be Melania and PRO to have just given an inter- as First Daughter. Ivanka pretended PRO tointerview be as Melania First Lady. and PROIvanka to pretended have PRO just to giveninterview be an as Melania First Daughter. and PRO to have just given an Ivanka claimed that she wasas Melania First and Lady. she had just given an interview Ivanka pretended that she was Melaniaas and First she had Lady. just given an interview Ivanka pretended that she was Melania and she had just given an interview view as First Lady. view as First Daughter. b. ? b. ? Claim a. b. Pretend a. b. Now, I should like to claim that the unavailability of the belief-self reading for should be no surprise thatcheck it this can by only eliminating receive the the counterfactual-self first reading. conjunct Let’s from the example. PRO is related to itsrule inability out to an be alternative read explanation, deassume pointed re. that But out PRO must to to be maintain me anaphoricallysentence. this, by dependent Additionally, I David the on will Adger first another have PRO (p.c.). argument to into within We the the Melania. examples So above if presumably has the to second refer occurrence of PRO is dependent on the first one, it (62) a. (60) a. (61) false information about Melania (theinterpretation (a) of sentences) the or (b) about sentences). Ivanka (the intended (59) Counterfactual de se being dead, for instance. Butattitude we verbs. find In the the same examples below, contrast suppose with that other Ivanka counterfactual is impersonating Melania (over the phone while talking to a White House aide say), and is feeding the aide early access h hfe indexical shifted The 6)a. (63) ). 2014 (Park discourse se: indirect de in read pronoun unambiguously is the pronoun of shifted the shifting Furthermore, genuine of rather but Korean: Mary-ka from example an is (65) Here speaker. as actual such the predicate to attitude than an rather of scope the in occur embeddings. multiple with antecedent long-distance a take can and overtly, nounced embedding John dominating immediately the (64) of object or least). subject at controller predicate: the the English antecedent: either its (in finds be overt it where must are pronouns. in constrained ordinary pronouns highly and is ordinary PRO PRO Furthermore, while between After difference re unpronounced, only se. de is the the de allow PRO not interpreted also is reading, be this belief-self to But the allow PRO reading. do obliges which that pronouns, ordinary mechanism all, same the is reading PRO another on anaphoric are that sentence. occurrences same to the confined in not and PRO of property nalnug hr h rtpro rnu a neg neia hf,i can it shift, indexical undergo can pronoun person first the where language a In eiso et hwta aelike case a that show tests of series A pro- is se, de unambiguously is that expression an find to is then, needed, is What belief-self the of absence the for responsible mechanism the that argue shall I general a is reading belief-self the of unavailability the stand: still judgments The Mr adta Ia,Mr s hero.’ a is} Mary am, {I that said ‘Mary Mary-Nom b. uigtecnesto,secamdPOt aejs ie ninterview an given Daughter. just Lady/?First have First to as PRO claimed Melania. she impersonating conversation, aide the House During White a up called an Ivanka Yesterday, given just Daughter. have Lady/?First to First PRO Mela- as pretended impersonating interview she aide conversation, House the During White nia. a up called Ivanka Yesterday, i lie htMary that claimed I-Nom nay-ka na 2014). (Park properties three all has Korean in hero-be-C yengwung-ila-ko j rtne PRO pretended 26 (65) said malhayssta. *i/j snta ntneo ietspeech, direct of instance an not is say ob genius. a be to n ee otesbetof subject the to refer and 2 x6) ex 2014:2, (Park ae Pearson Hazel say early access (68) cohahanta-ko like-C -lul 2 na I-Acc (Park :9,2014 ex 23) , for the reason that it is the only say malhayssta. said Mary-ka Mary-NOM to refer to John in readings (c) and na can receive the belief-self reading in a na -eykey 27 1 na I-to ttokttokhata-ko smart-C ceyil most malhayssta. said-C is the smartest.’ False i 19,20 = Bill (Park 2014:17, ex 48) = John Bill-i Bill-NOM = Tom = Bill 2 2 2 2 nay-ka I-Nom na na na na said that he i malhayssta-ko said-C = John = Tom = Tom = John 1 1 1 1 John-i John-NOM Lit. ‘John said that Bill said to me that Mary likes me.’ na na na na John took an exam, andID later numbers. saw the He top forgot his 10Pointing own scorers ID to with number, the the so respective top didn’t score, knowturned he who out remarked is that “This who. he guy was is talking the about smartest!” himself. But it John-Nom ‘John impersonating Hillary Clinton, and during the conversation, said ‘Mary is a d. Mary wants a bit of goodfrom publicity Hillary for Clinton herself, is and the thinks way that to an get endorsement it. Yesterday, she called up a journalist Tom: a. b. c. a. b. John-i The question, then, is whether shifted Finally, the shifted pronoun can take a long-distance antecedent across multiple As is typical for shiftingKorean languages, is the highly range limited; of the embeddingcounterfactual examples predicates attitude discussed that verb here license that all indexical licenses involve shift indexical in shift. counterfactual report with counter-identity. It cannot,in as the shown following by scenario. the falsity of (68) Scenario: (67) attitude verbs. This is shown by the ability of Counterfactual de se (66) Scenario: (d) of the example below. 19 I thank Yangsook Park and20 Dorothy Ahn for their judgments about these cases. early access 6)Scenario: (69) available: below. is scenario reading counterfactual-self the contrast, By eeie r miuu ewe es n er edn,ee hnte are they when 2010): even (Sharvit reading, subject re se de de a a and by se bound de a between ambiguous are Reflexives II Part 4.2 ambiguity. se/de counterfactual-self/belief-self de the showing display expressions also that ambiguity evidence re further the both provide In in will readings. I pronouns belief-self sub-section, ordinary and next that counterfactual-self seen both have allow Korean we behave: and they English how of glimpse a caught Generalization: Se cannot De it the se, of piece de first read (71) the unambiguously is is This expression se. reading. an de belief-self read if a unambiguously receive that are this both from that conclude is I common in What have counter-identity. expressions with two reports these counterfactual in PRO controlled obligatorily Mary-ka both in true (70) judged is that sentence a produces pronoun scenarios: person third a with pronoun sfrepesosta di ohd eadd eraig,w aealready have we readings, re de and se de both admit that expressions for As and indexicals shifted Korean both for unavailable is reading belief-self the So person first the replacing indexical: shifted the to specific is pattern this that Note Mr adta Ia,Mr s eo False hero. a is} Mary am, {I that said ‘Mary Mary-NOM Mary-ka hero’. fapoono npo suabgosyra es,te tcno eev a receive cannot it counter-identity. then with se, reports de counterfactual read in unambiguously reading is belief-self anaphor or pronoun a If I Part Generalization: Se De The hero.’ a is she that said ‘Mary Mary-NOM conversation, hero’. the called a during she Yesterday, am and is. ‘I Clinton, she said a Hillary off getting impersonating show by a journalist Clinton, what a Hillary about up for story publicity a bad write of to bit journalist a generate to wants Mary I-NOM nay-ka she-NOM kunye-ka hero-be-C yengwung-ila-ko hero-be-C yengwung-ila-ko 28 said malhayssta. said malhayssta (69) sjde rei the in true judged is ae Pearson Hazel early access . . na give True True 22 yè LOG koudo CONJ (Pearson 2015:98, ex 51) (Pearson 2015:101, ex 60) Obama Obama Barack Barack . i nyi COP in Ewe can be read de re as well as de se 29 yè 21 yè LOG cleva clever disliked himself i be COMPL le COP : Last night, John dreamt that he was Barack Obama. In the cadeau gift is a counterfactual attitude verb, meaning roughly ‘imagine while asleep’. For yè LOG koudrin dream said that he i : John has just found an old paper that he wrote, but he doesn’t realize yè LOG be say dream dream, he, as Barack Obama, gave himself (John) a gift. Ivanka imagined that she was Melania and she was watching herselfIvanka on imagined that she was Melania and she was watching herself on John ‘John dreamed that he was Barack Obama and he gave himself a gift.’ Scenario TV giving an interview as First Daughter. TV giving an interview as First Lady. John that he is the authorpaper of it the is. paper. He He says, reads “Whoever it wrote and this is paper impressed is by clever”. what a good Scenario 2: Jonathan pointed at hisin reflection, a not realizing mirror, that and he said, was ‘I looking dislike that guy’.b. True ‘John said that he was clever.’ Scenario 1: Jonathan said ‘I dislike myself’. True Scenario So if a pronoun or anaphor is ambiguous between a de se and a de re reading, Secondly, the logophoric pronoun Likewise, reflexives display both the counterfactual-self and the belief-self read- arguments to this effect, see section 5.1. then it is also ambiguous between the counterfactual-self and the belief-self reading. A logophoric pronoun is arefer pronoun to that the can bearer only of occurI the in assume attitude. the that scope of an attitude predicate and must (74) John ing (Heim 1994): (73) a. It too can receive either the belief-self(75) or the counterfactual-self reading: a. John Counterfactual de se (72) Jonathan The De Se Generalization can now be stated in its entirety as follows: (Pearson 2015, 2012, O’Neill 2016): 21 22 early access hti xetdo hsapoc,wt one o n ute assumptions. further any for need no with approach, this on expected is what h eS eeaiainrvasacreainbtenteuaalblt fde of unavailability the between correlation a reveals Generalization Se De The htpoon n npoasol ofr oteD eGnrlzto sexactly is Generalization Se De the to conform should anaphora and pronouns That (76) htdrv es ednsa pca aeo er.Tefis uhapoc that approach such first The re. de of case special a as readings se de derive that reading. belief-self a assigned be can expression the mechanism that former ensures availability the one the of latter availability while hand the The reading, other of re. counterfactual-self the de the on read of reading availability be re the or de guarantees bound, a se and de se be de either An a can readings. between such ambiguous belief-self that is not follow that automatically but expression will readings consequence it counterfactual-self a then receive as itself), or expression expressions abstractor, the lambda of a semantics shifted by the and (either of PRO binding as such se SELF-based expressions de se a undergo de by indexicals unambiguously mediated that readings assume re we de If as concept. arise readings belief-self and binding, to respect with to fare (ii). approaches 3 and three Section (i) the in desiderata how discussed examine readings as will belief-self Generalization I and Se sub-section, counterfactual- meet De this not the In does by coincidence. that highlighted mere system correlation a A the mechanism. treat single both will derive a desiderata (ii) with these and readings mechanism belief-self single and a re with de both readings derive (i) counterfactual-self will and discovery se of this de species of explanation of principled variety A a anaphora. discussion across and above pronouns cross-linguistically the attested As is readings. correlation belief-self this of shows, unavailability the and readings re Generalization Se De the Explaining 4.3 principled a provide can binding se relationship. counterfactual- de this of to of account appeals explanation an that only readings that belief-self belief-self argue and and shall counterfactual-self self I of sub-section, that next and the readings, In re readings. se/de de of availability the atr r essrihfrad oee,i etr u teto oapproaches to attention our turn we if however, straightforward, less are Matters se de via arise readings counterfactual-self that proposal (2008) Ninan’s Recall between relationship intimate an is there that reveals Generalization Se De The (ii) (i) Generalization Se De The hni a eev ihracutrata-efo eifsl edn in reading reading, belief-self de counter-identity. a a with or and counterfactual-self reports se counterfactual a de either a receive between can ambiguous it is then anaphor or pronoun a counter- If with cannot reports it counterfactual then in se, identity. de reading read belief-self unambiguously a is receive anaphor or pronoun a If 30 ae Pearson Hazel early access 31 be anchored to the counterfactual alternatives of the only A de se-as-de re approach appealing to an identification function for mapping To exclude this possibility, one would have to stipulate that unambiguously de se In order to ensure that unambiguously de se expressions cannot be assigned individuals at doxastic alternatives to individualsno at better: counterfactual alternatives such fares anexpressions approach such as must PRO assume and shiftedSELF-based that concept indexicals the are is augmented construed mechanism with de that a re function with ensures that respect that maps to the a belief-self to the can take a long distancecommon antecedent. is No, that what they PRO and arethat shifted both derives indexicals unambiguously the have read counterfactual-self in de construal se. fordoes An not. free account Obligatory should of anchoring be this of preferred property a to SELF-based one concept that to counterfactual centred perhaps be explained in thePRO case find of its PRO antecedent by in appealconcept the to to immediately the counterfactual dominating independent alternatives could clause; condition then the that becondition anchoring considered in of a the the reflex domain of of this locality attitudes (centred) decompose worlds into (say, their by counterfactual assuming and thatBut doxastic counterfactual such components in an the account syntax). cannot be applied to shifted indexicals, which we have seen expressions such as PRO and shiftedonly with indexicals a enter requirement the that semantic theybut composition be not with construed with an respect additional toattitude, a requirement SELF-based this that concept, concept when is embedded anchoredholder. to below As the a Pranav counterfactual Anand counterfactual alternatives (p.c.) of has the pointed attitude out to me, such a requirement could is the case? There doesof de not se seem readings to should becounterfactual require alternatives any when anchoring reason the of why embedding the a predicate concept is de to counterfactual; se-as-de the indeed re attitude analysis holder’s holder — why shouldn’t the same hold for counterfactual predicates as well? the res is the attitude holder and the concept inthe question belief-self is reading, SELF-based. proponents ofSELF-based this concept approach can would have to requireattitude that holder, and the not to her doxastic alternatives. But what would ensure that this of the attitude holder, rather than to her doxastic alternatives.doxastic Belief-self readings alternatives. In Section notion3.4 that deI re offered conceptsalternatives. can reasons Let’s assume be for for anchored the skepticism to moment, the about though, attitude that the holder’s this counterfactual is possible, at least when Counterfactual de se mediated by a SELF-based concept that is anchored to the counterfactual alternatives worlds belongs in the latter category. with doxastic predicates, the concept is anchored to the belief worlds of the attitude we discussed accounted for counterfactual-self readings by assuming that these are would then arise where the mediating concept is anchored to the attitude holder’s 23 early access ilsrgl oepanteD eGnrlzto.Tecu ftepolmi hton that is problem the of crux The Generalization. Se De the explain to struggle will .Alo hmsaethe share them of All 2003b). Sauerland & Percus 2010, Charlow 2006, (Anand h a ftikn bu es osra ncutrata eot eeoe here developed reports counterfactual in construal se de about thinking of way The EFbsdcnet u nodrt etordsdrt o rnildexplanation a principled a by for mediated desiderata construal our re meet de to readings: order se in de But by to concept. derived rise SELF-based are gives reading that belief-self mechanism the same and the counterfactual-self the both view, a such mechanism. single a with of readings desideratum counterfactual-self the and meet se to de fails deriving This reports. counter-identity in counterfactual-self ob sda ai o outcnlsosaotlnusial av paes judgments. speakers’ naïve are linguistically data experimental about the conclusions robust if for understood basis better both a be to as to sensitive used need are & be which domain (Dery effects, to this 2014 task in Dery and judgments & exposure participants’ Pearson of to that effects The shows study follow-up trace. paper a This the the by 2015). complicated Pearson of binds further edge is that picture left abstractor empirical the rather The an to but of (covertly) situ, moves insertion in it bound triggering that not clause, in is embedded pronoun pronoun relative se example, a de For like a otherwise. behaves that unexplained propose is Sauerland but binding, if & expected via Percus is about which comes intervention, syntactic construal of se form de a is blocking re de that assumption 2014. experi- Dery initial & received Pearson have but from subtle, support are mental judgements The Trump. Donald dislikes and reading, this se On de husband. construed Ivanka’s is dislikes — Melania — self husband. dream her Ivanka’s disliked she and Melania was she that dreamed Ivanka c-commanded (77) be cannot pronoun: pronoun re se de de a a counter-identity, by with reports dream in that so-called on light new sheds effects blocking re De paper. this 5.1 in proposed view the of consequences two describe I section this In proposal the of Consequences 5 Se grammar. De the the in of explanation binding se principled de a de positing that yields readings necessitates conclude Generalization I that belief-self way. mechanism with other the some readings, about that counterfactual-self coming posit produces should also we readings Generalization, se Se De the of ngnrl iwta rasd eraig saseilcs fd ereadings re de of case special a as readings se de treats that view a general, In eea conso er lcigefcshv enofrdi h literature the in offered been have effects blocking re de of accounts Several which in dream a report can sentence this Sauerland, & Percus to According her er.Hwvr tcno eotademweeIvanka where dream a report cannot it However, re. de er lcigeffects blocking re de 32 23 noticed 2003b Sauerland & Percus . ae Pearson Hazel she early access 25 but not dream is true in this type . Anand answers this (79) dream husband]]. 3 that constrains the concepts that may but not for . Consequently, a de re pronoun can c- 24 33 dream disliked her dream believe 1 t 2 [w 2 , a de re pronoun can c-command a de se pronoun: w w. x dislikes g(3)’s husband in w λ but not for λ 1 x x λ λ believe = g , believe c K (she) . CP CP J b. believe In this paper I align my support with Anand’s conclusion — both routes to de se Since we should not expect the syntactic constraint which gives rise to de re Suppose that Ivanka is suffering from amnesia, and confused about her identity. To the extent that this proposal is successful it too provides an argument for de A principle of Superiority dictates that given two pronouns that can both undergo re route is apparently availablequestion for by giving amediate semantics the for interpretation of de re material inI its gloss over scope: the such details of conceptssimple. the may de not re interpretation be of the possessive pronoun, to keep the representations route — de se as ain special the case scope of of decommand re — a is corresponding available for de thesyntactic se possessive constraints. pronoun pronoun in a belief report without violationare needed. of In addition, we are now in a position to understand why the de se-as-de of situation. He concludes that de re blocking effects are found with blocking to be active indata the to show scope that of there some is verbs a but second not route to others, deAnand se,takes in his addition to de se binding. This the President. She comes across a newspaper article that shedislike herself my wrote, husband’. which According is to Anand , a sentence like then it is difficult tostructurally explain conditioned. why the However, a array sticking ofblocking point de effects se for apparently only and this show de approach up re with isthat certain construals that in predicates. is the deAnand apparently 2006 scope re noticed of reason why the sentence cannotdislikes be Barack understood Obama as is reporting that this a wouldacross dream require the where movement of de Sophia the re possessive subject, pronoun which would violate Superiority. se binding: if there are no syntactic dependencies that can produce de se readings (78) a. [ this movement operation, it is the structurally higher one that should move. The (79) Ivanka believed that she was Melania and she disliked her husband. Counterfactual de se resulting structure is assigned aa property variant interpretation; of in the this binding sense, in the situ proposal approach: is very critical of the President. She concludes, ‘Wow, whoever wrote this must really with Various circumstances lead her to form the belief that she is Melania, the wife of 24 25 Again, see Pearson & Dery 2014 for initial experimental support for these judgments. 26 early access for Sauerland & slnusi vdne osdrtesnec n(80). in sentence the consider evidence, linguistic As assume shall I not. does latter the but effects blocking re de shows former the why 8)Rlhi raigta rct ee existed. never Ortcutt that dreaming is Ralph (80) Percus by proposed effects blocking re de of explanation Superiority-based the that of semantics the about said be to needs of special scope the in way this in constrained of be not should but construal is re explanation de principled why no of unsatisfying: given obviously is solution This SELF-based. mcnendwt nti ae.Teve eeoe nti ae rvdsa riuaino why of articulation an provides blocking. paper I re this that de in construal for developed of matter view type should The paper. the this this precisely — in shoes’ with else’s concerned someone am in oneself ‘putting involves between latter difference the the that suggests 2014). 2006 (Dever Percus reports have se I de cases counter-identity to the specific that not possibility are the discussed consider I sub-section, this In se? de without Counter-identity 5.2 of choice now. more by before binding a available conditioned via provides was are se This than effects de predicate blocking Ivanka. embedding re Melania, back de is gives how she re of which se-as-de explanation in principled de has and Ivanka Melania, that back for dream gives developed never a have saw of we Ralph report the that man a at arguments saw the the in he run (that man can impossibility the we an (qua So involve Ortcutt existed). not about does having that is say) Ralph that beach, dream re de a report 2009). (Ichikawa dreams of nature the philosophical of a view is latter there this fact, of In favor asleep’. should in while arguing verb ‘imagine literature the as that treated propose be I properly Instead, treatment more asleep’. the while with ‘believe odds roughly at meaning is as This false. be to believes of she that content a towards hold pretend the (77). lets in route not re but se-as-de (79), de in whereas the Melania Consequently, self, out self. pick counterfactual belief possessive the the returns returns binding re se of se-as-de scope de de the length, two in at the individual, argued counter-identity, same been with the now predicates return doxastic se of de to scope routes the in whereas that is dream ycnrs,teve rpsdi hspprhstecneuneta nothing that consequence the has paper this in proposed view the contrast, By ecnr-osrc h uzeo onefculd ewt hscase: this with re de counterfactual of puzzle the re-construct can We that assumption the on depends solution this that Notice , wish o xml,weei sanalyzed is it where example, for 2003b, Sauerland & Percus in given believe and . dream claim 26 ndntn nattd hta tiuehle a coherently can holder attitude an that attitude an denoting in scret h rca ifrnebtentetoverbs two the between difference crucial The correct. is 34 dream dream and believe and dream believe a eta h omrbtnot but former the that be may dream hyd o.A has As not. do they imagine nodrt explain to order in slike is ae Pearson Hazel on imagine (80) dream dream can : , early access is replaced with a counterfactual attitude: are both construed de re; what is required 35 believe Melania and Ivanka , it circumvents the problem of identity between distinct individuals that (81) b. Bill wishes that Ivanka were Melania. b. Heimson believes that he is Hume. I think that these cases need to be understood better, but that they do not un- This is initially surprising given what I have said about counterfactual de re: if Notice firstly that it is difficult to know what to make of these sentences on I have argued that in a counterfactual report with counter-identity, the only significant amount of contextualmeans support: to out imagine of that Ivanka the isthat blue, Melania, I I but am I do Melania. do In not knowthat the know what Ivanka former what it occupies case, means (such it there to as must imagine fact, being be this Bill’s some boss); “role-occupying” contextually in type salient the of role latter, identity this predication is can not arise needed. without In an attitude Bill is not mistaken aboutrequire who that Ivanka in and the Melania relevant are, counterfactual thenfor worlds the our Ivanka sentences overall is picture? should Melania. Is this a problem dermine the view developed in this paper. Firstly, it is telling that they require a encountering them out of theacceptable. blue. Suppose, But for with example, a that bit Bill of used context, to they work can for befor Melania, heard and her as he again, now or wishesthink that that the he sentences were in working (83) for can her be again. judged In true. these scenarios, I then, what happens in cases where (83) a. Bill is imagining that Ivanka is Melania. Here, the trick is that of Bill’s doxastic alternatives is notbut that rather Sophia that and the Michelle individuals Obama that be the identical, relevant concepts return are. We should ask, interpreted as denoting those individuals, but rather are merely lambda abstracted (81) a. Ivanka is imagining that she is Melania. construed as picking out theknown, counterfactual a nice self property is of ifthose de it in se is binding de is se that bound. in As counter-identity reports is such well as Ivanka is Melania, or where Heimson is Hume, since the embedded pronouns are not But de se binding is not the(82) only way of circumventing Bill this believes problem: that Ivanka is Melania. Counterfactual de se variables. works for Ivanka. He preferred Melania as a boss, so he imagines that he is working would arise on a propositional view: it does not matter that there is no world in which way for a nominal expression that takes the attitude holder as its antecedent to be 28 27 early access hsi ob xetdi h omrcaso aei eie yabnigmechanism binding a by derived is case of class former the if expected be to is This hrb tetista vnasbs redwse vnawr Melania. were Ivanka wishes friend best Ivanka’s that entails it whereby i vnawse htsewr eai n vnasbs redde too. does friend best Ivanka’s and Melania were she that wishes Ivanka (i) copula: the (85) for entry lexical following the like something invoke I say), Sophia. sick, am I is today, she For (because job her (84) at Sophia staff: for the in to fill say might temporarily I If sight. in opru hspsiiiyfurther. like possibility examples this for sub- pursue 1993 this to Nunberg 7 in in table discussed posited at cases that sitting the to is handle similar to mechanism depth. possible a greater be by in may section judgments it subtle that too. these suggests does investigate reviewer friend to anonymous best work An access: Ivanka’s future to and to easy Melania it equally like leave be looked I to she seem that readings wishes sloppy Ivanka and strict (ii) the where (ii), to this Compare reading. (i), as such case ellipsis an for reading strict a get can they that reports reviewer anonymous An class. latter the parties. for unavailable third is about that counter-identity desired or imagined collapsed be of cannot reports they with counter-identity: with together attitudes se de counterfactual about has. Ivanka as desires same the x: has of friend hold best P Ivanka’s that desiring y to (87) P property inference se) an (de blocks desiring that x nothing from is there principle, in counter-identity: without reports has. Ivanka as desires same the has friend best Ivanka’s following the (86) Consider type. second the to content inference attitudinal example: of of failure type by first supported the is from individuals other about counter-identity from hsoewyo eln ihtecssin cases the with dealing of way one Thus oteetn httesrc edn saalbefrm,i sdsrfre eaiet h sloppy the to relative dispreferred is it me, for available is reading strict the that extent the To distinctive something is there that view the support section this in data the sum, In counterfactual in find we that patterns inference the from different quite is This phenomenon distinct a is counter-identity with se de counterfactual that view The hrfr,Iak’ etfin ihsta vnawr popular. were Ivanka that wishes friend best Ivanka’s Therefore, J vnawse htsewr popular. were she that wishes Ivanka Melania. were Ivanka that wishes friend best Ivanka’s Melania. #Therefore, were she that wishes Ivanka be K c , g = λ or x mpre u back out parked am I λ y λ .i ,xocpe h oecnnclyocpe yy by occupied canonically role the occupies x w, in w. Seas example also (See . 28 36 (83) htlae u iwi ati to is tact in view our leaves that (84) bv. ev tt uuework future to it leave I above.) 27 h a sandwich ham The ae Pearson Hazel early access , are force dedicated de have something important do 37 ; since such predicates are not quantifiers over centred force However, I shall leave as open questions (i) the issue raised 29 ’; see Anand 2006 for a critique), and Patel-Grosz 2015. — syntactic structures that are unambiguously assigned the truth conditions only I conclude, then, that not only is there de se binding, but there are I am inclined to say that PRO too is (mandatorily) lambda-bound. As Chierchia After all, we must in any case say that ordinary pronouns can be lambda-bound What flavour of de se binding is needed? It seems more plausible to treat ordinary from se LFs of a de seby report. Landau of how PROcontroller, is and assigned (ii) how phi-features de if se it binding is ofAdditional not shifted arguments for bound indexicals this is directly view can implemented. by be found the in Percus & Sauerland 2003a (the so-called ‘argument lexical entry must say somethingthe else scope entirely of about a verb the like interpretation of PRO in this view would fail to be bound in such cases. as a lambda-bound variable: theserve control as infinitive an expresses argument a for property eitheror which a can a quantifier quantifier over centred over worldsthe worlds (an predicate attitude itself (a verb), is modal), given. Byapproach provided contrast, which that an implements aAnand the & de suitable- Nevins se lexical or binding-style Stephenson entry of PRO for by assigning it a particular necessary in order to accountSauerland forand the discussed de in se Section blocking5.1. effects observed by Percus & plain modal quantifiers. This poses no problem for a uniform treatment of PRO pronouns assigned the counterfactual-self readingin as the bound by syntax, a rather lambda thanparticular abstractor this use reading of) the arising pronoun. as a result of thein lexical order entry to of account (a for bound-variable uses as diagnosed by sloppy readings under SELF-based into the semantics. Yet thethat upshot pronouns of and the anaphors argument thatto developed can here teach only is us be read about de theof se routes a to de de re se, readingcorrelation in and should virtue the appeal lack of to of the de a correlation se belief-self between binding. reading. the A lack principled account of this Unambiguously de se expressions sucha as PRO starring and role shifted in indexicals havethe recent played outset debates of about this thesuccessive proper paper, authors it analysis have shown seemed of that de that lacka se this of de a construal. emphasis se-as-de de At may re re have view, reading by can been building be misplaced: the accounted for requirement on that the mediating concept be Counterfactual de se 6 Conclusion worlds, the individual parameter on which PRO depends for its semantic value on VP-ellipsis, binding by quantifiers, etc. Moreover, this assumption appears to be 1990 noted, not all control predicates are attitude verbs; some, such as 29 early access ihcutriett.Apicpe xlnto fteD eGnrlzto et on rests Generalization Se De the of explanation principled A counter-identity. with h supinta h w otsntol a il itntitrrttosi this in interpretations distinct yield can only not routes two the that ’sNinan reports assumption counterfactual on the in building construals incorrect, different is produce can assumption a routes this on two that premised the is argued that re have insight conditions de I truth of equivalent cases. case yield special all routes a in two as the se that de namely, of assumption: and mistaken binding se de of proponents hro,Smn 00 w id fd eblocking. re de of kinds Two 2010. Simon. Charlow, 2013. Dever. Josh & Herman Cappelen, me? Who, 1980. Lycan. G William & E Sam Boër, contexts. changing in operators Shifty 2004. Nevins. Andrew & Pranav Anand, subjectivity. and projects Suppositional 2011. Pranav. Anand, 2006. Pranav. Anand, References re se-as-de de than rather binding se advantage. de clear to a appeal receive enjoy only that this can control In it of counter-identity. addition theories with in reports respect, that counterfactual but in se, reading de counterfactual-self read is atti- the unambiguously PRO is controlled se or it obligatorily pronoun that about de other simply fact some report not semantic or core unambiguously indexical, the shifted instance, that a For PRO, anaphor. sentences be culprit for the semantics whether — tudes a by one. derived latter be the into into fall can fall pronouns indexicals that Overt shifted one be. and find must PRO it and we we category, that way, Where former conclude this bound. the should in se we way, construed de this be be in can can construed counterfactual that it in pronoun that re de a conclude of find should workings we the counterfactual Where construed with holder’s reports. is do attitude that to attitude the having pronoun out a reasons picking for principled as way for interpreted no self, be is to There re must. se-as-de they fact de in but case, of class http://www.jstor.org/stable/2184397. 427–466. aionaa at Cruz. Santa at California igLunch. Ling eatc n igitcTheory Linguistic and Semantics fteln fagmn eeoe nti ae scret hntedbt between debate the then correct, is paper this in developed argument of line the If ohclisgicneo esetv n h rtperson first the and perspective https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199686742.001.0001. of insignificance sophical 2913. pdf. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/37418. to need that facts the about precise more be us lets argument of line This https://simoncharlow.com/handouts/mit2up.pdf. eD Se De De http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~rthomaso/lpw11/anand. ascuet nttt fTcnlg dissertation. Technology of Institute Massachusetts . https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v14i0. 20–37. 14. 38 h nseta neia:O h philo- the On indexical: inessential The h hlspia Review Philosophical The adu ftl ie tMIT at given talk of Handout s,Uiest of University Ms., U Oxford. OUP . ae Pearson Hazel only 89(3). be early access 88(4). 29(1). 24(1). , 1–32. Handout Handout of Models for Pronouns in The Inessen- 22(1). 151–271. , 1–41. Cham: Springer Mind & Language Synthese , vol. 71. MIT Press. https: The Philosophical Review . Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen. Philosophical Perspectives 19(1). 178–214. https://doi.org/10. . 39 Semantics and contextual expression 7(3). 1–43. . https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.7.3 On experience-driven semantic judgments: A Synthese 5(4). 503–535. . https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00355585 9(3). 183–221. . https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/9.3.183 . A two-tiered theory of control , 87–111. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1711-4_6. Semantics and Pragmatics . October 2014. International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56706-8_1. 513–543. . https://doi.org/10.2307/2184843 249–283. . https://doi.org/10.1111/phpe.12065 In Pritty Patel-Grosz, Patrick Georgembedded Grosz & contexts Sarah at Zobel the (eds.), syntax-semantics interface . https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00413602 of talk given at the University of Tübingen a talk given at USC modalities case study on the Oneiric Referencehttps://doi.org/10.15496/publikation-8629. Constraint tial Indexical: on the Philosophical Insignificance of Perspective and the First Dordrecht: Foris. reports. van Emde Boas In R. Bartsch (ed.), . //doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262028851.001.0001 . //semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mVkNjZlY/Bielefeld%20handout%2094.pdf Linguistics and Philosophy Person Journal of Semantics 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2008.01355.x . 1007/BF00568057. Lewis, David. 1979. Attitudes de dicto and de se. Magidor, Ofra. 2015. The myth of the de se. Landau, Idan. 2015. Landau, Idan. 2018. Direct variable binding and agreement in obligatory control. Ichikawa, Jonathan. 2009. Dreaming and imagination. Kaplan, David. 1968. Quantifying in. Lakoff, George. 1970. Linguistics and natural logic. Heim, Irene. 2002. Features of pronouns in semantics and morphology. Hintikka, Jaakko. 1969. Semantics for propositional attitudes. In Heim, Irene. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics ofHeim, attitude Irene. verbs. 1994. Puzzling reflexive pronouns in deHeim, se Irene. reports. 2001. Semantics Handout. and morphologyhttp: of person and logophoricity. Dery, Jeruen E & Hazel Pearson. 2015. Dever, Josh. 2014. Reply to Richards’ and Pearson’s comments on Chierchia, Gennaro. 1990. Anaphora and attitudes de se. In J.Cresswell, van Maxwell Benthem & J. & Arnim von Stechow. 1982. De re belief generalized. Counterfactual de se Charlow, Simon & Yael Sharvit. 2014. Bound ‘de re’ pronouns and the LFs of attitude early access ae,Ea.21.O h od od e In se. de to roads the On 2011. Emar. Maier, dicto, de for semantics unified a acquaintance: Presupposing 2009. Emar. Maier, 2006. Emar. Maier, ecs rn&UiSurad 03.O h F fattd eot.In reports. attitude of LFs the On 2003a. Sauerland. Uli & manuscript. Orin Unpublished Percus, pronouns? Uninterpreted Experimental 2006. se: Orin. Percus, de and re de Dreaming 2014. Dery. Jeruen & Hazel Ewe. Pearson, in pronoun logophoric the of interpretation The 2015. Hazel. Pearson, 2012. Hazel. Pearson, the and typology Pronominal 2015. Pritty. Patel-Grosz, logophor Korean. Ewe in Caki reflexive Danyi long-distance the and shift the Indexical 2014. Yangsook. of Park, distribution The 2016. Teresa. O’Neill, deixis. and Indexicality 1993. Geoffrey. Nunberg, worlds. multi-centered and attitudes Counterfactual 2012. Dilip. Ninan, In 2008. deletion. Dilip. phrase Ninan, noun for identity of criterion the On 1970. Jerry. Morgan, attitudes. Parasitic 2015. Emar. Maier, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00984721. 1–43. WNhNjVjO/. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55e3a4d0e4b06cce652896c2/t/ America. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/45621. Technology. Bedeutung ThlYTM5N/patelgrosz_pro_dere_dese.pdf. agaeSemantics Language //sites.google.com/site/emarmaier/publications. https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/ 393–412. 21, vol. er n es eifreports. belief se . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-010-9065-2 de and re de reports attitude se de ednso inudBduug7 Bedeutung und Sinn of ceedings In Constraint. Reference Oneiric the for evidence sions http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/ Oslo. of University manuscript, published indexical_shifting.pdf. http://blogs.umass.edu/yangsook/files/2011/09/Park_2014_ Ms. Unpublished 56a2ba800e4c11785794d0bd/1453505153503/LSA_O%27Neill_slides.pdf. yi Pragmatics and Society Linguistic Chicago meeting, regional . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-015-9174-z SALT/article/viewFile/2611/2358. akgvna h nulMeigo h igitcSceyof Society Linguistic the of Meeting Annual the at given Talk . http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/ dissertation. University Harvard . o.1,322–339. 18, vol. , https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.5. 1–57. 5(5). mgnto,cnet n h self the and content, Imagination, eifi otx:Twrsauie eatc fd eand re de of semantics unified a Towards context: in Belief h es fsl:Tpc ntesmniso es expres- se de of semantics the in Topics self: of sense The . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-015-9112-1 77–118. 23(2). https: dissertation. Nijmegen Universiteit Radboud . igitc n Philosophy and Linguistics igitc n Philosophy and Linguistics http: Konstanz. Konstanz, of University , 40 eatc n igitcTheory Linguistic and Semantics 380–389. , igitc n Philosophy and Linguistics ascuet nttt of Institute Massachusetts . es/ere se/de de rceig fSn und Sinn of Proceedings 25.429–474. 32(5). 83.205–236. 38(3). itnto.Un- distinction. ae Pearson Hazel Semantics Natural 16(1). Sixth Pro- , early access 27(4). 26(1). Semantics and the Journal of . Massachusetts , vol. 33, 379–404. Journal of Semantics Journal of semantics Linguistics and Philosophy Proceedings of NELS 41 Propositional attitudes and indexicality: A cross cat- Towards a theory of subjective meaning , vol. 33, 265–284. 21. 56–75. . https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v21i0.2620 . Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. http: 53(5). 177–187. . https://doi.org/10.2307/2022451 and mood under verbal quantifiers. In Institute of Technology dissertation. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/41695 . 29–120. . https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022225203544 28(1). 55–106. . https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffq012 attitudes. Unpublished manuscript. . http://philpapers.org/rec/VONBBV . http://paolosantorio.net/opi.draft3b.pdf egorial approach . let.uu.nl/~tanya.reinhart/personal/Papers/pdf/De_se_91.wp.pdf Linguistic Theory //hdl.handle.net/1721.1/9353. . //semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jI4NmJlY/PercusSauerland03a.pdf Proceedings of NELS Philosophy 409–436. . https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffq011 Hazel Pearson School of Languages, Linguistics andQueen Film Mary University of London, London Mile End Road London, E1 4NS United Kingdom [email protected] Yanovich, Igor. 2011. The problem of counterfactual de re attitudes. von Stechow, Arnim. 2003. Feature deletion under semantic binding: Tense,Stephenson, person, Tamina. 2007. Stephenson, Tamina. 2010. Control in centred worlds. Schlenker, Philippe. 2003. A plea for monsters. Sharvit, Yael. 2010. Covaluation and unexpected BT effects. von Stechow, Arnim. 2002. Binding by verbs: Tense, person and mood under Santorio, Paolo. 2014. On the plurality of indices. Manuscript,Schlenker, University Philippe. of Leeds. 1999. Quine, Willard V. 1956. Quantifiers and propositional attitudes. Reinhart, Tanya. 1990. Self-representation. Unpublished manuscript. http://www. Counterfactual de se Percus, Orin & Uli Sauerland. 2003b. Pronoun movement in dream reports. In