On epithets qua attributive anaphors

Abstract

A multiple-proposition theory is proposed, according to which a single utterance can express several distinct propositions. An utterance of “Jon, the idiot, missed the train” expresses the official proposition THAT JON MISSED THE TRAIN and the background proposition THAT JON IS AN IDIOT. It is argued that only the official proposition affects the truth-value of the utterance, while the background proposition(s) may be treated similarly to pragmatic presuppositions. The multiple-proposition theory helps us to defend the thesis that, in an utterance such as “Jon1 promised to come but the idiot1 missed the train”, the epithet the idiot must be understood as an attributive anaphor, for it inherits its value from Jon and attributes to Jon the property of being an idiot. It is argued that epithets in such constructions should be viewed in a way similar to quasi-indicators, insofar as the latter are also attributive anaphors. The quasi-indicator she herself in “Jane1 believes that she (herself)1 is rich” inherits its value from Jane and attributes an I-thought to Jane. In focusing on the similarities and differences between epithets and quasi-indicators, we can explain some alleged difficulties, difficulties which suggest that epithets cannot be anaphoric (e.g. “*Jon1 claimed/said/thinks/ … that the bastard1 was honest”). It is shown that the ungrammaticality of sentences like these rests on the fact that the epithet is embedded in what should be a de se attribution (e.g. “Jon1 claimed/said/thinks that he (himself)1 was honest”) while its nature is to contribute to the expression of a de re attribution. This helps us to understand the ungrammaticality of “*Jane1 said/thinks/promised/ … that the idiot1 will come” vs. the grammaticality of “Jane1 said/thinks/promised/ … that she (herself)1 will come” on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the ungrammaticality of “Jon1 ran over a man who was trying to give him (*himself)1 directions” vs. the grammaticality of “Jon1 ran over a man who was trying to give the idiot1 directions”.

Perspective-shifting and free indirect discourse: Experimental investigations

“…(3) a. Jon said he would come but the idiot missed the train. (Corazza 2005) b. Right after Chuck agreed to help out, the jerk boarded a plane for Tahiti.…”

“…(Potts 2003) Who thinks Jon is an idiot, who thinks that Chuck is a jerk, and who dislikes Sheila's dog? The first intuition is to interpret the epithets in (3) as speaker-oriented expressions (e.g., Corazza 2005;Potts 2003Potts , 2005; see also predicates of personal taste), such that the speaker of each sentence is the judge. However, does the judge of epithets have to be the speaker?…”

“…However, does the judge of epithets have to be the speaker? A number of researchers have argued that this is indeed the case (e.g., Corazza 2005;Potts 2005 and earlier work) and others have made the same claim (or assumed it to be so) for appositive relative clauses (see discussion and references in Harris & Potts 2009). However, Karttunen & Zaenen (2005), Wang, Reese & McCready (2005) and Amaral et al (2007) have argued that epithets and appositives can also receive non-speaker-oriented interpretations.…”

The left and right periphery in Dutch

“…Generally, parenthetical material involves a secondary proposition next to the main proposition; see Corazza (2005), Potts (2007), and De Vries (2009), for instance. An example with an appositive relative clause is (10):…”

On Anaphors Linked to Names Used Metaphorically

“…For instance, "she (herself)" in "Mary thinks that she (herself) is bright" can be considered as a logophoric pronoun insofar as it attributes to Mary a thought she would express by using the pronoun "I". On the contrary, an anti-logophoric pronoun is an anaphoric pronoun that attributes to the referent of the term it is co-indexed with a property the latter would not attribute to him/herself, let alone accept it as a correct characterization of him/herself (see Corazza 2005;Dubinsky & Hamilton 1998). 6 In no way do the authors intend to insult or undermine the former president of the USA.…”