Cover not available
Part of
Verb and Context: The impact of shared knowledge on TAME categories
Edited by Susana Rodríguez Rosique and Jordi M. Antolí Martínez
[IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature 34] 2023
► pp. 171–202

Solipsistic and inter-subjective attitude reports

From representational to volitionals

 | Institut Jean Nicod CNRS/ENS/EHESS/PSL
 | Institut Jean Nicod CNRS/ENS/EHESS/PSL
This paper establishes a difference between solipistic and inter-subjective profiles of the attitudes across the epistemic and the bouletic domain. Revisiting the classical Hamblinian view, we propose that attitudes feature speech-act like content, which present p for uptake in the common ground and argue that the uptake with bouletics is ‘realization’. Focusing on a debated distinction between action-oriented vs. mere desire reports, we derive actionability as a felicity condition on the inter-subjective use of want in particular. We study a variety of bouletics in Italian, and show how their temporal and rationality constraints relate to their private or public status and how the default inter-subjective interpretation of want can be manipulated by specific lexical material.
Keywords:
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Solipsistic and inter-subjective interpretations of the representational attitudes
  • 3.Desiderative reports and ascriptions
    • 3.1Data
      • Rationality
      • Temporal orientation
      • Actions
    • 3.2Previous analysis
      • Are desire reports like all attitude reports?
      • Double material
      • (At least) two types of desire
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.2Inter-subjective want
    • 4.2Solipsistic bouletics
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 4 January 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ivitra.34.08lau
References (55)
References
Anand, P. and Hacquard, V. 2013. “Epistemics and attitudes.” Semantics and Pragmatics 6 (8): 1–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arendt, H. 1996. Love and saint augustine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beyssade, C. and Marandin, J.-M. 2007. “French intonation and attitude attribution.” In Texas linguistics society conference: Issues at the semantics-pragmatics interface.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. 1974. “One subjunctive or two?” Hispania 57 (3): 462–471. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. and Schaefer, E. F. 1989. “Contributing to discourse.” Cognitive science 13 (2): 259–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Condoravdi, C. 2002. “Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for the past.” In The construction of meaning, D. Beaver, S. Kaufmann, B. Clark and L. Casillas (eds), 59–88. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Condoravdi, C. and Lauer, S. 2011. “Performative verbs and performative acts.” In Proceedings of sinn und bedeutung, vol. 15, 149–164. Osnabrück/Berlin: Osnabrück University/Humboldt University.Google Scholar
2016. “Anankastic conditionals are just conditionals.” Semantics and Pragmatics 9: 1–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costantini, F. 2006. “Obviation in subjunctive argument clauses and the first-personal interpretation.” In Phases of interpretation, M. Frascarelli (ed), 295–319. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crnič, L. 2011. Getting even. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [URL]
Davis, W. A. 1984. “The two senses of desire.” Philosophical Studies 45: 15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farkas, D. 1988. “On obligatory control.” Linguistics and Philosophy 11 (1): 27–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992. “On the semantics of subjunctive complements.” In Romance languages and modern linguistic theory, P. Hirschbueler and K. Koerner (eds), 69–104. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Assertion, belief, and mood choice. Paper presented at the workshop on conditional and unconditional modality, Vienna.
Farkas, D. and Bruce, K. 2010. “On reacting to assertions and polar questions.” Journal of Semantics 27 (1): 81–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, K. 1999. “NPI Licensing, Strawson Entailment, and Context Dependency.” Journal of Semantics 16 (2): 97–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, A. 1999. “Affective dependencies.” Linguistics and Philosophy 22 (3): 367–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, A. and Mari, A. 2021a. “A linguistic framework for knowledge, belief, and veridicality judgement.” KNOW.A journal on the formation of knowledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021b. Truth and Veridicality in Grammar and Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giorgi, A. and Pianesi, F. 1997. Tense and aspect: From semantics to morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grano, T. 2017. “The Logic of Intention Reports.” Journal of Semantics 34 (4): 587–632. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gunlogson, Christine. 2001. True to Form: Rising and Falling Declaratives in English. Doctoral dissertation, UCSC.
Hamblin, C. 1970. Fallacies. Methuen.Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. L. 1971. “Mathematical models of dialogue.” Theoria 37 (2): 130–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hare, R. M. 1971. “Wanting: Some Pitfalls.” In Practical Inferences, R. M. Hare (ed), 44–58. London: Macmillan Education UK. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, I. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
1992. “Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs.” Journal of Semantics 9: 183–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, J. 1969. “Semantics for Propositional Attitudes.” In Models for Modalities: Selected Essays, J. Hintikka (ed), 87–111. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iatridou, S. and von Fintel, K. 2005. What to Do If You Want to Go to Harlem: Anankastic Conditionals and Related Matters. MIT. [URL]
Kaufmann, M. 2012. Interpreting imperatives. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laca, B. 2010. “Mood in Spanish.” In Mood in the languages of Europe, R. Thieroff and B. Rothstein (eds), 199–220. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. “Temporal orientation and the semantics of attitude verbs.” In International Meeting on Syntax, Semantics, and their Interfaces. Porto Alegre, Brazil.Google Scholar
Levinson, D. 2003. “Probabilistic model-theoretic semantics for want.” In The proceedings of SALT 13, R. B. Young and Y. Zhou (eds), 222–239. Ithaca: Cornell University. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locke, D. 1982. “Beliefs, Desires and Reasons for Action.” American Philosophical Quarterly 19 (3): 241–249.Google Scholar
Mandelkern, M., Schultheis, G. and Boylan, D. 2017. “Agentive Modals.” The Philosophical Review 126 (3): 301–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mari, A. 2016. “Assertability conditions of epistemic (and fiction) attitudes and mood variation.” In The Proceedings of SALT 26, 61–81. CLC Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021. “Belief and performativity.” Aspects of Tenses, Modality, and Evidentiality. Brill, 214–233.Google Scholar
Mari, A., and Portner, P. 2021. Mood variation with belief predicates: Modal comparison and the raisability of questions. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ozello, Y. 1978. French exclamatory sentences. Doctoral dissertation, University of Winsconsin.
Phillips-Brown, M. 2020. “Anankastic conditionals are still a mystery.” Semantics and Pragmatics 12 (13): 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Portner, P. 2007. “Beyond the common ground: The semantics and pragmatics of epistemic modals.” In Invited communication at the international conference on linguistics in Korea.Google Scholar
2018. Mood. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Portner, P. and Rubinstein, A. 2013. “Mood and contextual commitment.” In The proceedings of SALT 22, A. Chereches (ed), 461–487. CLC Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020. “Desire, belief, and semantic composition: variation in mood selection with desire predicates.” Natural Language Semantics 28 (4): 343–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, C. 1996. “Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics.” In Papers in semantics, J.-H. Toon and A. Kathol (eds), 91–136. Columbus: Department of Linguistics, the Ohio State University.Google Scholar
2015. “Conditional plans and imperatives: A semantics and pragmatics for imperative mood.” In Proceedings of the 20th Amsterdam colloquium, 353–362.Google Scholar
Rubinstein, A. 2017. “Straddling the line between attitude verbs and necessity modals.” In Modality across syntactic categories, 610–633. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadock, J. M. 1974. Toward a linguistic theory of speech acts. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Silk, A. 2018. “Commitment and states of mind with mood and modality.” Natural Language Semantics 26 (2): 125–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R. 1978. “Assertion.” In Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics, P. Cole (ed), 315–332. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1984. Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. 2021. “Obviation in hungarian: what is its scope, and is it due to competition?” Glossa 6 (1): 57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sæbø, K. J. 2001. “Necessary conditions in a natural language.” In In Audiatur Vox Sapientiae: A Festchrift for Arnim von Stechow, ed. Caroline Féry and Wolfgang Sternefeld, 427–449. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Villalta, E. 2008. “Mood and gradability: an investigation of the subjunctive mood in Spanish.” Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (4): 467–522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, K. 1999. “NPI licensing, strawson entailment, and context dependency.” Journal of Semantics 16 (2): 97–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar