Abstract
AbstractTruth conditions of sentences ascribing non-doxastic propositional attitudes seem to depend on the information structure of the embedded clause. In this paper, we argue that this kind of sensitivity is a semantic phenomenon rather than a pragmatic one. We report four questionnaire studies which explore the impact of the information structure on the truth conditions of non-doxastic attitude ascriptions from different perspectives. The results of the first two studies show that the acceptability of those ascriptions can be affected by some structural modifications of the embedded clause, in particular, when we replace a simple form by an equivalent complex conjunctional form (‘p and q’). However, it is possible that different evaluations of such ascriptions have a pragmatic source, namely, the ascriptions with embedded conjunction imply that the agent’s attitude transfers to both conjuncts. In the second pair of studies, we further investigate the nature of this implication which can be classified as ‘Conjunction Elimination’ (CE) in the scope of an attitude verb. The results show that CE-inferences in the context of non-factive non-doxastic attitude ascriptions are not easily cancellable and hence of a semantic rather than pragmatic nature. The results are not conclusive when it comes to the factive non-doxastic attitudes. We conclude our findings by some considerations about a potential source of the observed difference between non-factive and factive attitude verbs and the significance of our general findings to the semantic theory of non-doxastic attitude ascriptions.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference26 articles.
1. Asher, Nicholas. 1987. A typology for attitude verbs and their anaphoric properties. Linguistics and Philosophy 10 (2): 125–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00584317.
2. Blumberg, Kyle. 2017. Ignorance Implicatures and Non-doxastic Attitude Verbs. In Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium, eds. Alexandre Cremers, Thom van Gessel, and Floris Roelofsen: 135–144. https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jZiM2FhZ/AC2017-Proceedings.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2023
3. Chemla, Emmanuel, and Benjamin Spector. 2011. Experimental evidence for embedded scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics 28 (3): 359–400. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffq023.
4. Cresswell, Max, J. 1985. Structured Meanings: The Semantics of Propositional Attitudes. Cambridge: MIT Press.
5. Égré, Paul. 2020. Logical Omniscience. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118788516.sem034.