1887
Volume 33, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-7332
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9919
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper investigates the semantics of the Greek subjective attitude verbs (‘find’) and (‘consider’). I present data from Greek where both verbs embed small clauses including evaluative adjectives (‘tasty’, ‘attractive’) and I develop a tentative analysis for each verb following Sæbø’s (2009) account of and Chierchia’s (1995) analysis for generic predicates. I propose that: a) is a stage-level subjective verb expressing transitory opinions about objects of evaluation as viewed within a particular experience situation; b) is an individual-level subjective verb expressing generic opinions about objects of evaluation as realised across various experience situations. This approach explains the observed contrasts between the two verbs. Moreover, it shows that the individual- and stage- level distinction is manifested in attitude verbs and that language employs distinct verbs depending on how an object of evaluation is viewed by the relevant judge.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/avt.33.02bim
2016-12-14
2019-10-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bouchard, David-Étienne
    2012 Long-Distance Degree Quantification and the Grammar of Subjectivity. Ph.-D. thesis, McGill University.
  2. Bylinina, Lisa
    2014The grammar of standards: Judge-dependence, purpose-relativity, and comparison classes in degree constructions. (= LOT, 347)Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Carlson, Gregory
    1977 Reference to kinds in English. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
  4. Chierchia, Gennaro
    1995 “Individual-level predicates as inherent generics”. The Generic Booked. by G.N. Carlson and F.J. Pelletier , 176–223. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chierchia, G.
    1998 “Reference to kinds across languages”. Natural Language Semantics6: 4. 339–405. doi: 10.1023/A:1008324218506
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008324218506 [Google Scholar]
  6. Giannakidou, Anastasia
    2002 “Licensing and sensitivity in polarity items: From downward entailment to nonveridicality” (= CLS 38-2) ed. by M. Andronis , E. Debenport , A. Pycha & K. Yoshimura , 29–53. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Giannakidou, A.
    2009 “The dependency of the subjunctive revisited: Temporal semantics and polarity”. Lingua119: 12 1883–1908. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.11.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.11.007 [Google Scholar]
  8. Kennedy, Christopher
    2012 “Two kinds of subjectivity”. Subjective Meaninged. by C. Meier and J. Huitink . To appear.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Kratzer, Angelika
    1995 “Individual-level predicates”. The Generic Booked. by G.N. Carlson and F.J. Pelletier , 125–175. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Krifka, Manfred , Pelletier, Francis J. , Carlson, Gregory N. , Chierchia, Gennaro , Link, Godehard , & ter Meulen, Alice
    1995 “Introduction to genericity”. The Generic Booked. by G.N. Carlson and F.J. Pelletier , 1–124. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Lasersohn, P.
    2005 “Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste”. Linguistics and Philosophy28: 6. 643–686. doi: 10.1007/s10988‑005‑0596‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-0596-x [Google Scholar]
  12. 2009 “Relative truth, speaker commitment, and control of implicit arguments.” Synthese166: 2. 359–374. doi: 10.1007/s11229‑007‑9280‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9280-8 [Google Scholar]
  13. Sæbø, K. J.
    2009 “Judgment ascriptions”. Linguistics and Philosophy32: 4. 327–352. doi: 10.1007/s10988‑009‑9063‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-009-9063-4 [Google Scholar]
  14. Sioupi, Athina
    2014 “Result states, target states, and aspectual perfectivity”. Zwischen Kern Und Peripherie: Untersuchungen Zu Randbereichen in Sprache Und Grammatik 76ed. by A. Machicao y Priemer , A. Nolda and A. Sioupi , 131–156. Berlin: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1524/9783050065335.157
    https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050065335.157 [Google Scholar]
  15. Smith, Carlota S.
    1991 “The parameter of aspect”. (= Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, 43). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑7911‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7911-7 [Google Scholar]
  16. Stephenson, T.
    2007 “Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste”. Linguistics and Philosophy30: 4. 487–525. doi: 10.1007/s10988‑008‑9023‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9023-4 [Google Scholar]
  17. de Swart, Henriëtte
    2012 “Verbal aspect across languages”. Handbook of Tense and Aspected. by R. Binnick , 752–780. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/avt.33.02bim
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/avt.33.02bim
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): attitude verbs , experience , genericity , semantics and subjectivity
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