1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Minimalism and Beyond
  4. Chapter

Intensionality, grammar, and the sententialist hypothesis

image of Intensionality, grammar, and the sententialist hypothesis

Intensionality, the apparent failure of a normal referential interpretation of nominals in embedded positions, is a phenomenon that is pervasive in human language. It has been a foundational problem for semantics, defining a significant part of its agenda. Here we address the explanatory question of why it exists. Distinguishing lexical aspects of meaning from those that depend on grammatical patterning, we argue that intensionality is mainly grammatical in nature and origin: intensionality is an architectural consequence of the design of human grammar, although, in language use, lexical and pragmatic factors also play a role in the genesis of intuitions of non-substitutability salva veritate. Over the course of this paper, we offer a sequence of ten empirical arguments for this conclusion. A particular account of recursive structure-building in grammar is also offered, which predicts intensionality effects from constraints that govern how nominals of different grammatical types are embedded as arguments in larger units. Crucially, our account requires no appeal to a traditionally postulated semantic ontology of ‘senses’ or ‘thoughts’ as entities ‘denoted’ by embedded clauses, which, we argue, are explanatorily inert. It also covers intensionality characteristics in apparently non-sentential complements of verbs, which we further argue, against the claims of the recent ‘Sententialist Hypothesis’, not to be sentential complements in disguise.

References

  1. Abney, Steven
    1987 “The English Noun Phrase and its Sentential Aspect.” Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Arsenijevic, Boban and Hinzen, Wolfram
    2012 “On the absence of X-within-X recursion in human grammar.”Linguistic Inquiry43(3): 423–440. doi: 10.1162/LING_a_00095
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00095 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bentzen, Kristine
    2010 “Exploring embedded main clause phenomena: The irrelevance of factivity and some challenges from V2 languages.”Theoretical Linguistics36: 163–172. doi: 10.1515/thli.2010.010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2010.010 [Google Scholar]
  4. Boeckx, Cedric
    2010 Defeating Lexicocentrism. Manuscript, University Autonoma di Barcelona.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Borsley, Robert D. and Kornfilt, Jaklin
    2000 “Mixed extended projections.” InThe Nature and Function of Syntactic Categories, Robert D. Borsley (ed.), 101–131. New York: Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/S0092‑4563(00)80021‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-4563(00)80021-5 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bowers, John
    2011 Arguments as Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Brandom, Robert
    1994 Making it Explicit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Carlson, Gregory N
    1977 “A unified analysis of the English Bare plural.”Linguistics and Philosophy1: 413–456. doi: 10.1007/BF00353456
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00353456 [Google Scholar]
  9. Carnap, Rudolf
    1947 Meaning and Necessity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Comrie, Bernard
    1976 Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Chomsky, Noam
    1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 2000 New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511811937
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811937 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2007 “Approaching UG from below.” In Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View From Syntax-Semantics, Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 2008 “On phases.”InFoundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, Robert Freidin , Carlos P. Otero and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. De Villiers, Jill
    2007 “The interface of language and theory of mind.”Lingua117(11): 1858–1878. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.11.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.11.006 [Google Scholar]
  16. Den Dikken, Marcel , Larson, Richard and Ludlow, Peter
    1996 “Intensional transitive verbs and concealed complement clauses.”Rivista di Linguistica8: 29–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Fiengo, Robert and Higginbotham, James
    1981 “Opacity in NP.”Linguistic Analysis7: 395–422.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. von Fintel, Kai and Heim, Irene
    2009 Intensional Semantics. Manuscript, MIT and UMass.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Fodor, Jerry A. and Lepore, Ernest
    2002 The Compositionality Papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Fodor, Jerry A
    1970 “Three reasons for not deriving “kill” from “cause to die”.” Linguistic Inquiry1: 429–438.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Frege, Gottlob
    1892 “On sense and reference.” transl. by P. T. Geach. InTranslations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, P.T. Geach and M. Black (eds), 56–78. Oxford: Blackwell(1966).
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Grimshaw, Jane
    2010 Main Clauses as Arguments. Manuscript, Rutgers University.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Haegeman, Liliane and Ürögdi, Barbara
    2010 “Referential CPs and DPs: An operator movement account.”Theoretical Linguistics36: 111–152.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Harley, Heidi
    2011 “Lexical decomposition in modern syntactic theory.”InThe Oxford Handbook of Compositionality, Markus Werning , Wolfram Hinzen and Edouard Machery (eds), 328–350. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Harves, Stephanie
    2008 “Intensional transitives and Silent HAVE: Distinguishing between Want and Need.”Proceedings of WCCFL27, 211–219.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Harves, Stephanie and Richard S. Kayne
    2012 “Having need and needing have.”Linguistic Inquiry43: 120–132. doi: 10.1162/LING_a_00076
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00076 [Google Scholar]
  27. Heim, Irene and Kratzer, Angelika
    1998 Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Hintikka, Jaakko
    1969 “Semantics for propositional attitudes.”InPhilosophical Logic, J.W. Davis , David J. Hockney and W.K. Wilson (eds), 21–45. Dordrecht: Reidel. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑9614‑0_2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-9614-0_2 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hinzen, Wolfram
    2006 Mind Design and Minimal Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199289257.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199289257.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2007 An Essay on Names and Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 2011 “Syntax in the Atom.”InThe Oxford Handbook of Compositionality, Markus Werning , Wolfram Hinzen and Edouard Machery (eds), 351–370. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Kayne, Richard S
    2011 “Antisymmetry and the lexicon.”InThe Biolinguistic Enterprise, Cedric Boeckx and Anna-Maria di Sciullo (eds), 329–353. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria
    1993 Nominalizations. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Kornfilt, Jaklin and Witman, John
    2011 “Introduction: Nominalizations in syntactic theory.”Lingua7: 1160–1163. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.01.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.01.006 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kratzer, Angelika
    1998 “Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites?”InEvents and Grammar, Susan Rothstein (ed.), 163–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑3969‑4_8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_8 [Google Scholar]
  36. Landau, Idan
    2000 Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitival Constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Larson, Richard K
    1998 “Events and modification in nominals.”InSemantics and Linguistic Theory VIII (SALT8), Devon Stolovitch and Aaron Lawson (eds), 145–168. Ithaka, NY: Cornell University.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 2002 “The grammar of intensionality.” InLogical Form and Language, Gerhard Preyer and Georg Peter (eds), 228–262. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 2011 “Clauses, propositions and phases.”InThe Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty, Anna-Maria Di Sciullo and Cedric Boeckx (eds), 366–391. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Leu, Tom
    2008 “The Internal Syntax of Determiners.” Ph.D. dissertation, New York University.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Longobardi, Giuseppe
    1994 “Reference and proper names.”Linguistic Inquiry25 (4): 609–665.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 2005 “Towards a unified grammar of reference.”Zeitschrift für Sprach­wissenschaft24: 5–44.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 2008 “Reference to individuals, person, and the variety of mapping parameters.”InEssays on Nominal Determination: From Morphology to Discourse Management, Henrik H. Müller and Alex Klinge (eds), 189–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.99.11lon
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.99.11lon [Google Scholar]
  44. McCawley, James
    1974 “On identifying the remains of deceased clauses.”Language Research9: 73–85.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Moltmann, Frederike
    1997 “Intensional verbs and quantifiers.”Natural Language Semantics5: 1–52. doi: 10.1023/A:1008245409172
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008245409172 [Google Scholar]
  46. Montague, Richard
    1974 Formal Philosophy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Partee, Barbara H
    2008 “Negation, intensionality, and aspect: Interaction with NP semantics.”InTheoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect, Susan Rothstein (ed.), 291–320. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Pietroski, Paul
    2005 Events and Semantic Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Reichard, Ulrich
    2012 “Making events redundant: Adnominal modification and phases.”InPhilosophical and Formal Approaches to Linguistic Analysis, Piotr Stalmaszczyk (ed.), 429–475. Frankfurt a.M.: Ontos.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Richards, Marc D
    2011 “Deriving the edge: What’s in a phase?”Syntax14 (1): 74–95. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2010.00146.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2010.00146.x [Google Scholar]
  51. Ross, John Robert
    1973 “Slifting.”InThe formal analysis of natural languages, Maurice Gross, Morris Halle and Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger (eds), 133–169. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Saka, Paul
    2011 Belief Reports. Delivered at SPE 4, University of Bochum, 26 September–1 October 2011.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Saul, Jennifer
    1999 “Substitution, simple sentences, and sex scandals.”Analysis59(2): 106–112. doi: 10.1093/analys/59.2.106
     https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/59.2.106 [Google Scholar]
  54. Sheehan, Michelle
    2011 “Extraposition and antisymmetry.”InLinguistic Variation Yearbook 2010, Jereoen van Craenenbroeck and Johan Rooryck (eds), 203–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Sheehan, Michelle and Hinzen, Wolfram
    2011 “Moving towards the edge.”Linguistic Analysis37(3–4): 405–458.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Szabo, Zoltan G
    2001 “Adjectives in context.”InPerspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse, Istvan Kenesei and Robert M. Harnish (eds), 119–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.90.12gen
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.90.12gen [Google Scholar]
  57. Wurmbrand, Susanne
    2001 Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Zimmermann, Thomas E
    1993 “On the proper treatment of opacity in certain verbs.”Natural Language Semantics1: 149–179. doi: 10.1007/BF00372561
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00372561 [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Abney, Steven
    1987 “The English Noun Phrase and its Sentential Aspect.” Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Arsenijevic, Boban and Hinzen, Wolfram
    2012 “On the absence of X-within-X recursion in human grammar.”Linguistic Inquiry43(3): 423–440. doi: 10.1162/LING_a_00095
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00095 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bentzen, Kristine
    2010 “Exploring embedded main clause phenomena: The irrelevance of factivity and some challenges from V2 languages.”Theoretical Linguistics36: 163–172. doi: 10.1515/thli.2010.010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2010.010 [Google Scholar]
  4. Boeckx, Cedric
    2010 Defeating Lexicocentrism. Manuscript, University Autonoma di Barcelona.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Borsley, Robert D. and Kornfilt, Jaklin
    2000 “Mixed extended projections.” InThe Nature and Function of Syntactic Categories, Robert D. Borsley (ed.), 101–131. New York: Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/S0092‑4563(00)80021‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-4563(00)80021-5 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bowers, John
    2011 Arguments as Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Brandom, Robert
    1994 Making it Explicit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Carlson, Gregory N
    1977 “A unified analysis of the English Bare plural.”Linguistics and Philosophy1: 413–456. doi: 10.1007/BF00353456
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00353456 [Google Scholar]
  9. Carnap, Rudolf
    1947 Meaning and Necessity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Comrie, Bernard
    1976 Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Chomsky, Noam
    1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 2000 New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511811937
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811937 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2007 “Approaching UG from below.” In Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View From Syntax-Semantics, Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 2008 “On phases.”InFoundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, Robert Freidin , Carlos P. Otero and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. De Villiers, Jill
    2007 “The interface of language and theory of mind.”Lingua117(11): 1858–1878. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.11.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.11.006 [Google Scholar]
  16. Den Dikken, Marcel , Larson, Richard and Ludlow, Peter
    1996 “Intensional transitive verbs and concealed complement clauses.”Rivista di Linguistica8: 29–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Fiengo, Robert and Higginbotham, James
    1981 “Opacity in NP.”Linguistic Analysis7: 395–422.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. von Fintel, Kai and Heim, Irene
    2009 Intensional Semantics. Manuscript, MIT and UMass.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Fodor, Jerry A. and Lepore, Ernest
    2002 The Compositionality Papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Fodor, Jerry A
    1970 “Three reasons for not deriving “kill” from “cause to die”.” Linguistic Inquiry1: 429–438.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Frege, Gottlob
    1892 “On sense and reference.” transl. by P. T. Geach. InTranslations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, P.T. Geach and M. Black (eds), 56–78. Oxford: Blackwell(1966).
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Grimshaw, Jane
    2010 Main Clauses as Arguments. Manuscript, Rutgers University.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Haegeman, Liliane and Ürögdi, Barbara
    2010 “Referential CPs and DPs: An operator movement account.”Theoretical Linguistics36: 111–152.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Harley, Heidi
    2011 “Lexical decomposition in modern syntactic theory.”InThe Oxford Handbook of Compositionality, Markus Werning , Wolfram Hinzen and Edouard Machery (eds), 328–350. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Harves, Stephanie
    2008 “Intensional transitives and Silent HAVE: Distinguishing between Want and Need.”Proceedings of WCCFL27, 211–219.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Harves, Stephanie and Richard S. Kayne
    2012 “Having need and needing have.”Linguistic Inquiry43: 120–132. doi: 10.1162/LING_a_00076
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00076 [Google Scholar]
  27. Heim, Irene and Kratzer, Angelika
    1998 Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Hintikka, Jaakko
    1969 “Semantics for propositional attitudes.”InPhilosophical Logic, J.W. Davis , David J. Hockney and W.K. Wilson (eds), 21–45. Dordrecht: Reidel. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑9614‑0_2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-9614-0_2 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hinzen, Wolfram
    2006 Mind Design and Minimal Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199289257.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199289257.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2007 An Essay on Names and Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 2011 “Syntax in the Atom.”InThe Oxford Handbook of Compositionality, Markus Werning , Wolfram Hinzen and Edouard Machery (eds), 351–370. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Kayne, Richard S
    2011 “Antisymmetry and the lexicon.”InThe Biolinguistic Enterprise, Cedric Boeckx and Anna-Maria di Sciullo (eds), 329–353. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria
    1993 Nominalizations. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Kornfilt, Jaklin and Witman, John
    2011 “Introduction: Nominalizations in syntactic theory.”Lingua7: 1160–1163. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.01.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.01.006 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kratzer, Angelika
    1998 “Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites?”InEvents and Grammar, Susan Rothstein (ed.), 163–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑3969‑4_8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_8 [Google Scholar]
  36. Landau, Idan
    2000 Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitival Constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Larson, Richard K
    1998 “Events and modification in nominals.”InSemantics and Linguistic Theory VIII (SALT8), Devon Stolovitch and Aaron Lawson (eds), 145–168. Ithaka, NY: Cornell University.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 2002 “The grammar of intensionality.” InLogical Form and Language, Gerhard Preyer and Georg Peter (eds), 228–262. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 2011 “Clauses, propositions and phases.”InThe Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty, Anna-Maria Di Sciullo and Cedric Boeckx (eds), 366–391. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Leu, Tom
    2008 “The Internal Syntax of Determiners.” Ph.D. dissertation, New York University.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Longobardi, Giuseppe
    1994 “Reference and proper names.”Linguistic Inquiry25 (4): 609–665.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 2005 “Towards a unified grammar of reference.”Zeitschrift für Sprach­wissenschaft24: 5–44.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 2008 “Reference to individuals, person, and the variety of mapping parameters.”InEssays on Nominal Determination: From Morphology to Discourse Management, Henrik H. Müller and Alex Klinge (eds), 189–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.99.11lon
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.99.11lon [Google Scholar]
  44. McCawley, James
    1974 “On identifying the remains of deceased clauses.”Language Research9: 73–85.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Moltmann, Frederike
    1997 “Intensional verbs and quantifiers.”Natural Language Semantics5: 1–52. doi: 10.1023/A:1008245409172
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008245409172 [Google Scholar]
  46. Montague, Richard
    1974 Formal Philosophy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Partee, Barbara H
    2008 “Negation, intensionality, and aspect: Interaction with NP semantics.”InTheoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect, Susan Rothstein (ed.), 291–320. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Pietroski, Paul
    2005 Events and Semantic Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Reichard, Ulrich
    2012 “Making events redundant: Adnominal modification and phases.”InPhilosophical and Formal Approaches to Linguistic Analysis, Piotr Stalmaszczyk (ed.), 429–475. Frankfurt a.M.: Ontos.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Richards, Marc D
    2011 “Deriving the edge: What’s in a phase?”Syntax14 (1): 74–95. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2010.00146.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2010.00146.x [Google Scholar]
  51. Ross, John Robert
    1973 “Slifting.”InThe formal analysis of natural languages, Maurice Gross, Morris Halle and Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger (eds), 133–169. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Saka, Paul
    2011 Belief Reports. Delivered at SPE 4, University of Bochum, 26 September–1 October 2011.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Saul, Jennifer
    1999 “Substitution, simple sentences, and sex scandals.”Analysis59(2): 106–112. doi: 10.1093/analys/59.2.106
     https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/59.2.106 [Google Scholar]
  54. Sheehan, Michelle
    2011 “Extraposition and antisymmetry.”InLinguistic Variation Yearbook 2010, Jereoen van Craenenbroeck and Johan Rooryck (eds), 203–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Sheehan, Michelle and Hinzen, Wolfram
    2011 “Moving towards the edge.”Linguistic Analysis37(3–4): 405–458.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Szabo, Zoltan G
    2001 “Adjectives in context.”InPerspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse, Istvan Kenesei and Robert M. Harnish (eds), 119–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.90.12gen
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.90.12gen [Google Scholar]
  57. Wurmbrand, Susanne
    2001 Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Zimmermann, Thomas E
    1993 “On the proper treatment of opacity in certain verbs.”Natural Language Semantics1: 149–179. doi: 10.1007/BF00372561
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00372561 [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027270061-lfab.11.13hin
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027270061-lfab.11.13hin
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027270061
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error