Reporting and Ascribing

doi:10.1017/9781108766401.002

Part I - Reporting and Ascribing

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 October 2022

Edited by

Daniel Altshuler

Show author details

Daniel Altshuler: Affiliation:
University of Oxford

Book contents

Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Type: Chapter
Information: Linguistics Meets Philosophy , pp. 15 - 74

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108766401.002 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aboh, E. O. (2010). Event operator movement in factives: Some facts from Gungbe. Theoretical Linguistics, 36(2–3), 153–162.Google Scholar

Arsenijević, B. (2009). Clausal complementation as relativization. Lingua, 119(1), 39–50.CrossRef Google Scholar

Axel-Tober, K. (2017). The development of the declarative complementizer in German. Language, 93(2), e29–e65. http://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0030 Google Scholar

Bary, C., & Maier, E. (2021). The landscape of speech reporting. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003526.Google Scholar

Beebee, H., & Fisher, A. J. R. (Eds.). (2020). Philosophical Letters of David K. Lewis. Volume 2: Mind, Language, Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bigelow, J. C. (1975a). Contexts and quotation Ⅰ. Linguistische Berichte, 38, 1–21.Google Scholar

Bigelow, J. C. (1975b). Contexts and quotation Ⅱ. Linguistische Berichte, 39, 1–21.Google Scholar

Bigelow, J. C. (1978). Believing in semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 2(1), 101–144.CrossRef Google Scholar

Blumberg, K., & Holguín, B. (2018). Ultra-liberal attitude reports. Philosophical Studies, 175, 2043–2062.Google Scholar

Blumberg, K., & Holguín, B. (2019). Embedded attitudes. Journal of Semantics, 36, 377–406.CrossRef Google Scholar

Blumberg, K., & Lederman, H. (2021). Revisionist reporting. Philosophical Studies, 178, 755–783.CrossRef Google Scholar

Brasoveanu, A., & Farkas, D. F. (2007). Say reports, assertion events and meaning dimensions. In Mos, P. (Ed.), A Building with a View: Papers in Honor of Alexandra Cornilescu. Bucharest: Editura Universitatii din Bucuresti.Google Scholar

Bricker, P. (1983). Worlds and Propositions: The Structure and Ontology of Logical Space. PhD dissertation, Princeton University.Google Scholar

Bricker, P. (2020). Modal Matters: Essays in Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Burge, T. (2019). Introduction. Alonzo Church: Life and work. Philosophy and intensional logic. In Burge, T. & Enderton, H. (Eds.), The Collected Works of Alonzo Church (pp. xx–xxiv). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Burge, T., & Enderton, H. (Eds.). (2019). The Collected Works of Alonzo Church. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1947). Meaning and Necessity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1956). Meaning and Necessity, 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1963). Replies and systematic expositions: Language, modal logic, and semantics. In Schilpp, P. A. (Ed.), The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap (pp. 889–943). La Salle, IL: Open CourtGoogle Scholar

Carnap, R. (1972). Notes on semantics. Philosophia, 2(1–2), 3–54.Google Scholar

Charlow, S., & Sharvit, Y. (2014). Bound ‘de re’ pronouns and the LFs of attitude reports. Semantics and Pragmatics, 7(3), 1–43.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G. (1989). Introduction. In Chierchia, G., Partee, B. H., & Turner, R. (Eds.), Properties, Types and Meaning. Volume II: Semantic Issues (pp. 1–20). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G., Partee, B. H., & Turner, R. (Eds.). (1989). Properties, Types, and Meaning. Volume II: Semantic Issues. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Church, A. (1940). A formulation of the simple theory of types. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 5, 56–68.Google Scholar

Church, A. (1946). Abstract of a formulation of the logic of sense and denotation. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 11, 31.Google Scholar

Church, A. (1950). On Carnap’s analysis of statements of assertion and belief. Analysis, 10, 97–99.CrossRef Google Scholar

Church, A. (1951a). A formulation of the logic of sense and denotation. In Henley, P., Kallen, H. M., & Langer, S. K. (Eds.), Structure, Method and Meaning: Essays in Honor of Henry M. Sheffer (pp. 3–24). New York: Liberal Arts Press.Google Scholar

Church, A. (1951b). The need for abstract entities in semantic analysis. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 80(1), 100–112.Google Scholar

Church, A. (1973). Outline of a revised formulation of the logic of sense and denotation (Part I). Nous, 7, 24–33.Google Scholar

Church, A. (1974). Outline of a revised formulation of the logic of sense and denotation (Part II). Nous, 8, 135–156.Google Scholar

Church, A. (1993). Revised formulation of the logic of sense and denotation: Alternative 1. Nous, 27, 141–157.CrossRef Google Scholar

Church, A. (2019). Correspondence with Rudolf Carnap, 1943–1954. In Burge, T. & Enderton, H. (Eds.), The Collected Works of Alonzo Church (pp. 1038–1073). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Cresswell, M. J. (1975). Hyperintensional logic. Studia Logica: An International Journal for Symbolic Logic, 34(1), 25–38.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cresswell, M. J. (1985). Structured Meanings: The Semantics of Propositional Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Cresswell, M. J., & von Stechow, A. (1982). De re belief generalized. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5, 503–535.Google Scholar

Davidson, K. (2015). Quotation, demonstration, and iconicity. Linguistics and Philosophy, 38, 477–520.Google Scholar

DeGraff, M. (2020). The politics of education in post-colonies: Kreyòl in Haiti as a case study of language as technology for power and liberation. Journal of Postcolonial Linguistics, 3, 89–125.Google Scholar

Gallin, D. (1975). Intensional Logic and Higher-Order Logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Gutzmann, D. (2015). Use-Conditional Meaning: Studies in Multidimensional Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gutzmann, D. (2019). The Grammar of Expressivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hawthorne, J., & Manley, D. (2012). The Reference Book. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Heim, I. (1992). Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics, 9, 183–221.CrossRef Google Scholar

Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and Belief. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Hunter, J., & Thompson, K. (2022). On the role of relations and structure in discourse interpretation. In Altshuler, D. (Ed.), Linguistics Meets Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Janssen, T. M. V. (2012). Compositionality: Its historic context. In Werning, M., Hinzen, W., & Machery, E. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality (pp. 19–46). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kamp, H. (2022). Referential and attributive descriptions. In Altshuler, D. G. (Ed.), Linguistics Meets Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kanger, S. (1957). Provability in Logic. PhD dissertation, Uppsala University.Google Scholar

Kaplan, D. (1964). Foundations of Intensional Logic. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Kaplan, D. (1968–69). Quantifying in. Synthese, 19, 178–214.Google Scholar

Kayne, R. S. (2008). Antisymmetry and the lexicon. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 8(1), 1–32.Google Scholar

Kemeny, J. G. (1948). Models of logical systems. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 13(1), 16–30.Google Scholar

Kemeny, J. G. (1956a). A new approach to semantics. Part I. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 21(1), 1–27.Google Scholar

Kemeny, J. G. (1956b). A new approach to semantics. Part II. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 21(2), 149–161.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kratzer, A. (1978). Semantik der Rede. Kontexttheorie, Modalwörter, Konditionalsätze. Königstein: Scriptor.Google Scholar

Kratzer, A. (2012). Modals and Conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kratzer, A. (2016). Evidential moods in attitude and speech reports. Amherst/Mass: Scholarworks@UMassAmherst. https://works.bepress.com/angelika_kratzer/10/Google Scholar

Kripke, S. (1959). A completeness theorem in modal logic. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 24(1), 1–14.Google Scholar

Kripke, S. (1963). Semantical analysis of modal logic I: Normal modal propositional calculi. Zeitschrift für mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, 9, 67–96.Google Scholar

Lederman, H. (2021). Fine-grained semantics for attitude reports. Semantics and Pragmatics, 14(1), 1–33. doi:10.3765/sp.14.1Google Scholar

Lewis, D. (1970). General semantics. Synthese, 22, 18–67.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lewis, D. (1986). On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lewis, D. (2020a). To Max Cresswell and Arnim von Stechow, 17 June 1981. In Beebee, H. & Fisher, A. R. J. (Eds.), Philosophical Letters of David Lewis. Volume 2: Mind, Language, Epistemology (pp. 104–108). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lewis, D. (2020b). To Frank Jackson and Valina Rainer, 29 March 1983. In Beebee, H. & Fisher, A. R. J. (Eds.), Philosophical Letters of David Lewis. Volume 2: Mind, Language, Epistemology (pp. 123–125). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lewis, D. (2020c). To Peter Inwagen and Hartry Field, 24 February 1988. In Beebee, H. & Fisher, A. J. R. (Eds.), Philosophical Letters of David Lewis. Volume 1: Causation, Modality, Ontology (pp. 585–589). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Maier, E. (2020). Quotes as complements: A Kratzerian approach. In Bhatt, R., Frana, I., & Menéndez-Benito, P. (Eds.), Making Worlds Accessible: Essays in Honor of Angelika Kratzer (pp. 91–98). Amherst: Scholarworks@UMassAmherst. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/ak_festsite_schrift/1/Google Scholar

Markman, E. M., & Wachtel, G. F. (1988). Children’s use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meaning of words. Cognitive Psychology, 20(2), 121–157.Google Scholar

Mates, B. (1952). Synonymity. In Linsky, L. (Ed.), Semantics and the Philosophy of Language (pp. 111–136). Urbana, IL: The University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar

Montague, R. (1960). Logical necessity, physical necessity, ethics, and quantifiers. Inquiry, 3(1–4), 259–269.CrossRef Google Scholar

Montague, R. (1970). Universal grammar. Theoria, 36(3), 373–398.Google Scholar

Moulton, K. (2015). CPs: Copies and compositionality. Linguistic Inquiry, 46(2), 305–342.Google Scholar

Parsons, T. (2001). The logic of sense and denotation: Extensions and applications. In Anderson, C. A. & Zelëny, M. (Eds.), Logic, Meaning and Computation (pp. 507–543). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Partee, B. (1973). The semantics of belief sentences. In Hintikka, J., Suppes, P., & Moravcsik, E. (Eds.), Approaches to Natural Language (pp. 309–336). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar

Percus, O., & Sauerland, U. (2003). On the LFs of attitude reports. Sinn und Bedeutung, 7, 228–242.Google Scholar

Pilley, J. W. (2013). Chaser: Unlocking the Genius of the Dog Who Knows a Thousand Words. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar

Potts, C. (2005). The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of “meaning.” In Gunderson, K. (Ed.), Language, Mind and Knowledge (pp. 131–193). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. O. (1956). Quantifiers and propositional attitudes. The Journal of Philosophy, 53(5), 177–187.Google Scholar

Recanati, F. (2012). Mental Files. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Richard, M. (1990). Propositional Attitudes: An Essay on Thoughts and How We Ascribe Them. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rogers, R. (1963). A survey of formal semantics. Synthese, 15(1), 17–56.Google Scholar

Schiffer, S. (1977). Naming and knowing. Midwest Studies in Philosophy Ⅱ, 28–41.Google Scholar

Sharvit, Y., & Moss, M. (2022). Acquaintance relations. In Altshuler, D. (Ed.), Linguistics Meets Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sosa, E. (1970). Propositional attitudes de dictu and de re. The Journal of Philosophy, 67(21), 883–896.CrossRef Google Scholar

van Inwagen, P. (1981). Why I don’t understand substitutional quantification. Philosophical Studies, 39(3), 281–285.Google Scholar

von Fintel, K. (1999). NPI licensing, Strawson entailment, and context dependency. Journal of Semantics, 16, 97–148.Google Scholar

von Fintel, K. (2001). Counterfactuals in a dynamic context. In Kenstowicz, M. (Ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language (pp. 123–152). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Werning, M., Hinzen, W., & Machery, E. (Eds.). (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Williamson, T. (2020). Suppose and Tell. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Yalcin, S. (2015). Quantifying in from a Fregean perspective. The Philosophical Review, 124(2), 207–253.Google Scholar

References

Abusch, D. (1988). Sequence of tense, intensionality and scope. In Borer, H. (Ed.), The Proceedings of the 7th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford Linguistics Association.Google Scholar

Abusch, D. (1994). Sequence of tense revisited: Two semantic accounts of tense in intensional contexts. In Kamp, H. (Ed.), Ellipsis, Tense and Questions, Dyana-2 Esprit Basic research Project 6852, Deliverable R2.2.B.Google Scholar

Abusch, D. (1997). Sequence of tense and temporal ‘de re’. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 1–50.CrossRef Google Scholar

Altshuler, D., & Schwarzschild, R. (2013). Moment of change, cessation implicatures and simultaneous readings. Sinn und Bedeutung, 17, 45–62.Google Scholar

Bary, C. (2022). Present Tense. In Altshuler, D. (Ed.), Linguistics Meets Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cariani, F., & Santorio, P. (2018). Will done better: Selection semantics, future credence, and indeterminacy. Mind, 127(505), 129–165.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2000). Meaning and Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. (1985). Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cresswell, M. J. (1985). Structured Meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Cresswell, M. J., & von Stechow, A. (1982). ‘De re’ belief generalized. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5, 503–535.Google Scholar

Dennett, D. (1987). The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Enç, M. (1981). Tense without Scope: An Analysis of Nouns as Indexicals. PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar

Gennari, S. (2003). Tense meanings and temporal interpretation. Journal of Semantics, 20, 35–71.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. D. (1970). The Linguistic Description of Opaque Contexts. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Frege, G. (1892). Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 100, 25–50.Google Scholar

Hawthorne, J., & Manley, D. (2012). The Reference Book. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Heim, I. (1994). Comments on Abusch’s theory of tense. In Kamp, H. (Ed.), Ellipsis, Tense and Questions, DYANA deliverable R2.2.B, 143–170. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Higginbotham, J. (2001). Why is sequence of tense obligatory? In Liakata, M., Jensen, B., & Maillat, D. (Eds.), Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philosophy and Phonetics, Vol. 6 (pp. 67–90). Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar

Jespersen, O. (1931). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part IV, Syntax, Third Volume, Time and Tense. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitatsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar

Kaplan, D. (1968). Quantifying in. Synthese, 19(1), 178–214.Google Scholar

Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In Almog, J., Perry, J., & Wettstein, H. (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kauf, C., & Zeijlstra, H. (2018). Towards a new explanation of sequence of tense. In Maspong, S., Stefánsdóttir, B., Blake, K., & Davis, F. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 28 (pp. 59–77).Google Scholar

Klecha, P. (2015). Double access. Unpublished manuscript, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

Klecha, P. (2016). Modality and embedded temporal operators. Semantics and Pragmatics, 9, 1–55.Google Scholar

Klein, E. H. (1979). On Sentences Which Report Beliefs, Desires, and Other Mental Attitudes. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar

Kratzer, A. (2022). Attitude Ascriptions and Speech Reports. In Altshuler, D. (Ed.), Linguistics Meets Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Ladusaw, W. (1977). Some problems with tense in PTQ. Texas Linguistic Forum, 6, 89–102.Google Scholar

Lewis, D. K. (1979). Attitudes de dicto and de se. Philosophical Review, 88(4), 513–543.CrossRef Google Scholar

McGinn, C. (1981). The mechanism of reference. Synthese, 29, 157–186.Google Scholar

Ninan, D. (2012). Counterfactual attitudes and multi-centered worlds. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5(5), 1–57.Google Scholar

Ogihara, T. (1996). Tense, attitudes, and scope. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar

Ogihara, T., & Sharvit, Y. (2012). Embedded tenses. In Binnick, R. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect (pp. 638–668). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Partee, B. H. 1973. Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy, 70, 601–609.Google Scholar

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

Percus, O. (2000). Constraints on some other variables in syntax. Natural Language Semantics, 8(3), 173–229.Google Scholar

Percus, O., & Sauerland, U. (2003). On the LFs of attitude reports. Sinn und Bedeutung, 7, 228–242.Google Scholar

Proops, I. (2014). Russellian acquaintance revisited. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 52, 779–811.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. O. (1956). Quantifiers and propositional attitudes. Journal of Philosophy, 53, 177–218.Google Scholar

Russell, B. (1911). Knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 11, 108–128.Google Scholar

Salmon, N. (2004). The good, the bad, and the ugly. In Bezuidenhout, A. & Reimer, M. (Eds.), Descriptions and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Schwager, M. (2011). Speaking of qualities. In Cormany, E., Ito, S., & Lutz, D. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 19 (pp. 395–412).Google Scholar

Sharvit, Y. (2018). Sequence of tense: Syntax, semantics, pragmatics. In Patel-Grosz, P., Grosz, P., & Zobel, S. (Eds.), Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 99: Pronouns in Embedded Contexts at the Syntax–Semantics Interface (pp. 215–247). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Sharvit, Y. (2020). Sequence of tense. In Matthewson, L., Meier, C., Rullmann, H., Zimmermann, T. E., & Gutzmann, D. (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar

Smith, C. (1978). The syntax and interpretation of temporal expressions in English. Linguistics and Philosophy, 2, 43–99.Google Scholar

von Stechow, A. (1995). On the proper treatment of tense. In Simons, M. & Galloway, T. (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), Vol. 5 (pp. 362–386).Google Scholar

Tsilia, A. (2021). Embedded Tense: Insights from Modern Greek. MA thesis, École Normale Supérieure, Paris.Google Scholar

Tsompanidis, V. (2015). Mental files and times. Topoi, 34(1), 233–240.Google Scholar

Wettstein, H. (1986). Has semantics rested on a mistake? The Journal of Philosophy, 83, 185–209.Google Scholar

Book contents

Part I - Reporting and Ascribing

Summary

Access options

References

References

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive