De re belief generalized

Cresswell, M. J.; Stechow, Arnim von

doi:10.1007/bf00355585

Cited by 157 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While it can be used in conjunction with a constrained architecture for focus interpretation such as alternative semantics, because alternatives can be introduced the top level, the recursive operations do not employ alternative semantics. Structured meanings are a semantic device which have also been used for other semantic problems, such as de re interpretation (Cresswell and von Stechow, 1982) and the exceptional scope of indefinites (Abusch, 1994). Therefore they should be regarded as a general device for constrained non-compositionality.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Second occurrence focus andRelativized Stress F

Rooth¹

2009

Information Structure

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter identifies a tight relation between information structure prominence, in terms of focus, and prosodic prominence, in terms of accent. This is done by way of a detailed analysis of second occurrence focus (SOF), a phenomenon that has drawn the attention of semanticists and phonologists only in recent years. There are parallels between the semantics and phonology which can be captured by means of two generalizations. The first one is Stress F, which posits that a pitch accent must be placed somewhere in the prosodic domain of the focus constituent. The second one, called Relativized Stress F, establishes a hierarchy between two bound foci with overlapping or embedding domains. The focus with higher semantic scope is prosodically more prominent than the focus with lower scope. The effects of both constraints can be captured in a strictly local fashion by the introduction of operators that operate as modifiers on semantic combination functions, such as Functional Application. These modifiers pass the information of semantic and prosodic prominence up the syntactic tree. Thus, the chapter, despite its strong semantic bias, relates the semantic interpretation of focus to the prosody, mediated by the syntax.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Second occurrence focus andRelativized Stress F

Rooth¹

2009

Information Structure

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Before introducing that solution, let us look at some traditional solutions to Quine's problem and convince ourselves that they, too, cannot solve the 'bound de re' pronouns problem posed by (1). Cresswell & von Stechow (1982) (following Kaplan 1968 andLewis 1979) propose that believe re , defined in (24), is the main verb in 'de re' ascriptions such as John believes that Mary is French. 6 This verb is "relational": it takes the 'res' -the individual about whom John holds his belief (here Mary) -as its first internal argument, and a property-denoting expression of type e, s, t as its second internal argument.…”

Section: :10mentioning

confidence: 99%

Bound 'de re' pronouns and the LFs of attitude reports

Charlow

Sharvit

2014

S&P

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An empirical argument is given in support of Percus & Sauerland's (2003) theory of 'de re' ascription, according to which the internal argument of believe is a function from concept-generators to propositions. The argument concerns pronouns in the scope of attitude verbs that are interpreted both 'de re' and as bound variables. It is argued that more traditional theories of 'de re' ascription -specifically, theories that take the 'res' to be an internal argument of believe -fail to account for such pronouns, as they predict that a pronoun cannot simultaneously be an argument of believe and bound by a quantifier in the scope of believe.

show abstract

“…(For example, the one presented by Cresswell & von Stechow (1982) is non-compositional, and the one used by Heim (1994) and Anand (2006) must stipulate a kind of otherwise unattested syntactic movement.) Percus and Sauerland's version is smoother and avoids stipulations of this kind, hence it seems a good candidate for setting up a comparison.…”

Section: Kaplan-style Semantics For the De Rementioning

confidence: 99%

Modals are monsters: on indexical shift in English

Santorio

2015

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I argue, contra Kaplan, that all English indexicals are shiftable. Starting from a new puzzle involving epistemic conditionals, I propose a semantics that accounts for embeddings of indexicals under non-metaphysical modals like might or believe. The central idea is that indexicals are variables: epistemic and doxastic modals are able to shift them by shifting the value of the assignment function. So all epistemic and doxastic modals turn out to be Kaplanian monsters. I close by arguing that the monstrous account has empirical advantages over the classical semantics for attitudes in the Kaplan tradition, and in particular over the recent version of it proposed by Percus and Sauerland.

show abstract

De re belief generalized

Cited by 157 publications

References 17 publications

Second occurrence focus andRelativized Stress F

Second occurrence focus andRelativized Stress F

Bound 'de re' pronouns and the LFs of attitude reports

Modals are monsters: on indexical shift in English

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About