Monotonicity in opaque verbs

Abstract

Frankfurt 0.Quantification vs. Predication In this paper I will defend a quantificational semantic analysis of the unspecific readings of opaque transitive verbs, i.e. verbs that induce a certain kind of ambiguity with respect to their direct object position: 1 (0a) I owe you a horse. (0b)Ernest is looking for a lion.Tom's horse resembles a unicorn.John hired an assistent.Unlike sentences with ordinary, transparent verbs and indefinite objects, each of (0a-d) allows for a reading that cannot be described in terms of existential quantification over the individuals in the extension of the respective noun. Rather, it seems as though the domain of quantification is shifted, as the following naive paraphrases (of the relevant readings) indicate:(0'a) I owe you an arbitrary horse. Neither arbitrary horses, nor intentional lions, nor generic unicorns are animals, and would-be assistents do not have to be assistents. 2 In fact, one may well wonder just what sort of objects the paraphrases in (0') are supposed to be about. Given their dubious ontological status, an analysis of (0) that can do without them ought to be preferrable to one along the lines of (0') -ceteris paribus. Such analyses have been developed, based on the observation 3 that opaque verbs tend to express propositional attitudes (in a broad sense). Following them, instead of trying to make literal sense of (0'), it is more worthwhile to explore the (admittedly rough) paraphrases under (0") instead, thereby reducing the strangeness of (0) to an interaction of the lexical meaning of the opaque verb and the ordinary meaning of the indefinite as existentially quantifying over the extension of its head noun: 4 (0"a) I am obliged to see to it that it will be the case that I give you a horse.(0"b) Jones is trying for it to be the case that Jones finds a lion.(0"c) Given its outward appearance, Tom's horse could be a unicorn.(0"d) Jones saw to it that someone would be an assistant.And semantic analysis does not have to stop here. Since the (underlined) objects of (0) seem to have their ordinary meanings in the paraphrases (0"), it is this meaning that they contribute to the the original sentences. Hence an opaque verb may be described as connecting the referent of its subject to this meaning -the sense of an existential quantifier, or maybe the property expressed by a noun. 5 Following this strategy of analysis, then, (0) does not come out as a 1 The sources of the examples (0a), (0c), and (0d) are, respectively: Buridanus (1977: 83), written in the 14th century and apparently the first discussion of opacity; Zimmermann (1993: 158); and Moltmann (1997:12). (0b) is concocted from Quine (1956: 177; 1960: 152), the first modern account of the phenomenon; Quine's original examples involve complications that would lead astray here. 2 There is an asymmetry between (0d) and the other sentences under (0), and thus between would-be assistents and the other outlandish objects quantfied over in (0): while (0d) implies that there be a specific individual -though not (nec...

Anankastic conditionals are just conditionals

“…The names for the alternatives are the ones Zimmermann (2006) 31 If it were, our analysis would be deriving the 'strong' construal of Huitink (2008), and inheriting its empirical problems.…”

“…However, there is an alternative for the representation of the non-specific (or rather, in Zimmermann's terms, the underspecific) reading that is compatible with the 'exact match'-analysis. As Condoravdi, Crouch & van den Berg (2001) and Zimmermann (2006) proposed, the indefinite can have wide scope if it is taken to quantify over properties or concepts, in particular, sub-properties (sub-concepts) of its restrictor.…”

“…In addition, the arguments of Condoravdi, Crouch & van den Berg (2001) and Zimmermann (2006) likely extend to intensional predicates with clausal complements, ultimately favoring the exact-match analysis over the QuineHintikka analysis for want. For the sake of concreteness and perspicuity, in the following we stick with the version of the exact-match analysis in (70).…”

Speaking of Qualities

“…On all types of transparent evaluation approaches, the restriction to contextually relevant English professors either follows the usual contextual restrictions on quantifiers (von Fintel 1994), or in terms of monotonicity inferences arising from the attitude predicate/opaque verb (cf. Zimmermann 2006). It falls out automatically from a presuppositional version of transparent interpretation (Geurts 1998, Romoli andSudo 2008).…”

Speaking of Qualities

“…This is a simplification: At least for some attitudes (e.g., seek) the ultimate choice requires attention to how exactly they are interpreted (cf. Zimmermann 2006). 14 Assuming that Q is interpreted as Q'.…”