Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T13:38:43.228Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Attitude Ascriptions and Speech Reports

from Part I - Reporting and Ascribing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2022

By
Angelika Kratzer
Edited by
Daniel Altshuler
Daniel Altshuler
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Get access

Summary

Attitude ascriptions and speech reports were at the center of attention when philosophers and logicians began to see natural languages as formal systems. My chapter looks at the history of formal semantics, not for its own sake, but for lessons about how to approach attitude ascriptions and speech reports today. I think we may have taken a few wrong forks in the road. To solve the problem of logical equivalents, we should have listened to Rudolf Carnap, who made it clear that the fact that the truth of an attitude ascription or speech report may depend on the intensional structure of the embedded clause in no way forces the conclusion that propositions can’t be mere intensions. For de re ascriptions, we should have listened to David Kaplan, who replaced names in the scope of attitude verbs with descriptions, rather than associating the individuals those names stand for with modes of presentation. What held us back in both cases was Fregean compositionality. Shedding that legacy, I present prototypes for analyses of attitude verbs and verbs of speech within an intensional semantics where propositions are mere sets of possible worlds and de re ascriptions require no special technologies created just for them.

Keywords

attitude ascriptionsspeech reportspossible worlds semanticsproblem of logical equivalentsde re ascriptionsintensional structuresFregean compositionality
Type
Chapter
Information
Linguistics Meets Philosophy , pp. 17 - 50
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arsenijević, B. (2009). Clausal complementation as relativization. Lingua, 119(1), 39–50.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.2017.0030Google 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Blumberg, K., & Lederman, H. (2021). Revisionist reporting. Philosophical Studies, 178, 755–783.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemeny, J. G. (1956b). A new approach to semantics. Part II. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 21(2), 149–161.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.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.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.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.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.Google Scholar
Yalcin, S. (2015). Quantifying in from a Fregean perspective. The Philosophical Review, 124(2), 207–253.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×