1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Evolutionary Linguistic Theory
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of From needing to wanting
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper explores the concepts of needing and wanting, and their relevance for communication from an evolutionary perspective. The main claim is that volition is rooted in the set of needs that determine an individual’s condition. It will be shown how needs and volition shape the architecture of speech acts, providing new support for Gricean intentionalism, according to which each major speech act is driven by a communicative intention. In addition, the paper investigates how these concepts are mapped onto natural-language expressions with intensional semantics and argues that the resulting ‘need’-predicates and volitional predicates differ in their argument structure: whereas ‘need’-predicates are analyzed as three-place predicates introducing an extra slot for a -argument, volitional predicates are analyzed as two-place predicates. Finally, it is assumed that all semantic flavors of deontic modality can be derived from volitional modality.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00068.mac
2026-04-17
2026-05-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/elt.00068.mac
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abraham, W.
    (2008) Wie ist die historisch spezifische Ausgliederung der Modalitäten bei den deutschen Modalverben denkbar?Linguistische Berichte, –. 10.46771/2366077500214_3
     https://doi.org/10.46771/2366077500214_3 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2009) Die Urmasse von Modalität und ihre Ausgliederung. Modalität anhand von Modalverben, Modalpartikeln und Modus. Was ist das Gemeinsame, was das Trennende, und was steckt dahinter. InModalität, Epistemik und Evidentialität bei Modalverb, Adverb, Modalpartikel und Modus. W. Abraham & E. Leiss (eds.). [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 77]. (pp.–) Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. (2011) Traces of Bühler’s semiotic legacy in modern linguistics. In: Theory of language. A. Eschbach & D. Goodwin (eds.) (pp.–) 2nd ed.Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chap. Preface. 10.1075/z.164.01abr
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.164.01abr [Google Scholar]
  4. (2012) (Inter)Subjektivierung oder Fremdbewusstseinsabgleich als synchrone und diachrone Wandelbegriffe? Begriffsschärfung und theoretische Einordnung. Jahrbuch für Germanistische Sprachgeschichte, –. 10.1515/jbgsg‑2012‑0004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jbgsg-2012-0004 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2020) Modality in Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 165. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139108676
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139108676 [Google Scholar]
  6. Arfsten, A., Paulsen-Schwarz, A., & Terhart, L.
    (2019) Friesische Gebrauchsgrammatik. Bräist/Bredstedt: Nordfriisk Instituut.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Au, S. von
    (2025) Effects of self-touch and social-touch on peripheral oxytocin concentrations: A study conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Physiology &Behavior, p.. 10.1016/j.physbeh.2025.115061
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2025.115061 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bach, K. & Harnish, R. M.
    (1979) Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bech, G.
    (1949) Das Semantische System der Modalverben. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague, –. 10.1080/01050206.1949.10422382
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01050206.1949.10422382 [Google Scholar]
  10. Becker, K. F.
    (1836) Ausführliche deutsche Grammatik als Kommentar der Schulgrammatik. 2nd ed.Vol.. Frankfurt am Main: G. F. Kettembeil.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bekoff, M., Allen, C. & Gordon, B. M.
    (2002) The cognitive animal. Empirical and theoretical perspectives on animal cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/1885.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1885.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  12. Berger, R.
    & al (2024) Oxytocin-Augmented Modular-Based Group Intervention for Loneliness: A Proof-Of-Concept Randomized Controlled Trial. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, –. 10.1159/000538752
     https://doi.org/10.1159/000538752 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bornstein, M. H. & Esposito, G.
    (2023) Coregulation: A Multilevel Approach via Biology and Behavior. Children, p.. 10.3390/children10081323
     https://doi.org/10.3390/children10081323 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bowlby, J.
    (1982) Attachment and Loss: Attachment. 2nd ed.New York City: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. (1991) “Postscript”. In: Attachment across the life cycle. C. Murray Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde, & P. Marris (eds.), (pp.–) London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Bühler, K.
    (1934) Sprachtheorie. Jena: Fischer.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Chereches, F. S., Ballhausen, N.,
    (2024) Is There a Link Between Older Adults’ Frequency of (Face-to-Face and Remote) Contact With Grandchildren and Cognitive Functioning Over 12 Years?InThe Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. B. Cassidy (ed.). 10.1093/geronb/gbae175
     https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbae175 [Google Scholar]
  18. Chereches, F. S., Olaru, G.
    (2026) Grandparents’ cognition and caregiving for grandchildren: Frequency, type, and variety of activities. In: Psychology and Aging. 10.1037/pag0000958
     https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000958 [Google Scholar]
  19. Cooper, R.
    (2023) From perception to communication: A type theory for action and meaning. [Oxford Studies in Semantics and Pragmatics 16]. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780192871312.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192871312.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Cooper, R.
    (2015) Probabilistic Type Theory and Natural Language Semantics. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology, –. 10.33011/lilt.v10i.1357
     https://doi.org/10.33011/lilt.v10i.1357 [Google Scholar]
  21. Coye, C.
    (2024) Female Diana Monkeys (Cercopithecus diana) Have Complex Calls. In: Linguistic Inquiry, –. 10.1162/ling_a_00535
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00535 [Google Scholar]
  22. Curme, G. O.
    (1922) A grammar of the German language. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing CO.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Davidson, Donald
    (2001) Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 10.1093/0198237537.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/0198237537.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. De Dreu, Carsten K. W.
    (2011) Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, –. 10.1073/pnas.1015316108
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1015316108 [Google Scholar]
  25. Delbrück, B.
    (1901) Grundfragen der Sprachforschung. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner. 10.1515/9783111457642
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111457642 [Google Scholar]
  26. Den Dikken, M., Larson, R. & Ludlow, P.
    (2018) Intensional Transitive Verbs and Abstract Clausal Complementation. InNon-propositional intentionality. A. Grzankowski, & M. Montague, (eds), (pp.–). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198732570.003.0003
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198732570.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  27. Dennett, D. C.
    (1991) Consciousness explained. Little, Brown and Co.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Diewald, G.
    (1999) Die Modalverben im Deutschen: Grammatikalisierung und Polyfunktionalität. [Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 208]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110945942
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110945942 [Google Scholar]
  29. Durkheim, É.
    (1897) Le Suicide. Paris: Ancienne Librairie Germer Baillière et C ie.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Eco, U.
    (1986) Semiotics and Philosophy of Language. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. 10.2979/2919.0
     https://doi.org/10.2979/2919.0 [Google Scholar]
  31. Eide, K. M.
    (2005) Norwegian Modals. [Studies in Generative Grammar 74]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110899634
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110899634 [Google Scholar]
  32. Eisenberg, Peter
    (1992) Adverbiale Infinitive: Abgrenzung, Grammatikalisierung, Bedeutung. In: Deutsche Syntax. Ansichten und Aussichten. Hoffmann, L. (ed.). (pp.–) Berlin: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. (2013) Grundriß der deutschen Grammatik: Das Wort. 4th ed.Vol.. Stuttgart: Metzler.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Erb, M. C.
    (2001) Finite Auxiliaries in German. PhD-thesis. Katholieke Universiteit Brabant.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Farkas, Donka F.
    (1983) Intensionality and Romance Subjunctive Relatives. PhD-thesis. University of Chicago. Chicago, IL.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Farkas, D. F. & Bruce, K. B.
    (2010) On Reacting to Assertions and Polar Questions. Journal of Semantics, –. 10.1093/jos/ffp010
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffp010 [Google Scholar]
  37. Feldman, R.
    (2003) Infant-mother and infant-father synchrony: The coregulation of positive arousal. In: Infant Mental Health Journal, –. 10.1002/imhj.10041
     https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.10041 [Google Scholar]
  38. Fillmore, C.
    (1968) The case for case. InUniversals in linguistic theory. E. Bach & R. T. Harms (eds.). (pp.–) London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Fintel, K. von & Heim, I.
    (2011) Intensional semantics. Ms.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Forbes, G.
    (2006) Attitude problems. An essay on linguistic intensionality. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274949.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274949.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  41. Fortune, S. M. E.
    (2025) Cooperative foraging between dolphins and fish-eating killer whales. Scientific Reports. 10.1038/s41598‑025‑22718‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-22718-4 [Google Scholar]
  42. Fritz, G.
    (1997) Historische Semantik der Modalverben. InUntersuchungen zur semantischen Entwicklungsgeschichte der Modalverben im Deutschen. G. Fritz & Gloning (eds.). [Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 187], (pp.–) Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110940848.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110940848.1 [Google Scholar]
  43. Geurts, B.
    (2019) Communication as commitment sharing: Speech acts, implicatures, common ground. Theoretical Linguistics, –. 10.1515/tl‑2019‑0001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2019-0001 [Google Scholar]
  44. Ginzburg, J.
    (2012) The interactive stance: Meaning for conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697922.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697922.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  45. Ginzburg, J. & Kim, J.-B.
    (2023) Exclaiming non-sententially: exclamative sluices and the (non-elliptical) nature of ellipsis constructions. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics. 10.16995/glossa.9639
     https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.9639 [Google Scholar]
  46. Glas, R.
    (1984) ‘sollen’ im heutigen Deutsch. Bedeutung und Gebrauch in der Schriftsprache. [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 27]. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Gretsch, P.
    (2013) Satztyp und Spracherwerb. InSatztypen des Deutschen. J. Meibauer, M. Steinbach, & H. Altmann. (pp.–.) Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110224832.815
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110224832.815 [Google Scholar]
  48. Grice, P. H.
    (1957) Meaning. The Philosophic Review, –. 10.2307/2182440
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2182440 [Google Scholar]
  49. Gutzmann, D.
    (2019) The Grammar of Expressivity. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 72. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198812128.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198812128.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  50. Hackl, M.
    (1998) On the semantics of “ability attributions”. Ms.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Hacquard, V.
    (2006) Aspects of Modality. PhD-thesis. MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. (2011) Modality. InSemantics. An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (eds.). Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 33.2, (pp.–). Berlin: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Harris, D. W.
    (2014) Speech act theoretic semantics. PhD-thesis. New York City: City University of New York Graduate Center.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. (2019) Intention and commitment in speech acts. Theoretical Linguistics.–, –. 10.1515/tl‑2019‑0004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2019-0004 [Google Scholar]
  55. Harves, S. &. Kayne, R. S.
    (2012) Having ‘Need’ and Needing ‘Have’. Linguistic Inquiry, –. 10.1162/LING_a_00076
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00076 [Google Scholar]
  56. Hill, V.
    (2007) Vocatives and the pragmatics–syntax interface. Lingua, –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.01.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  57. Hockett, C. F.
    (1960) The Origin of Speech. Scientific American, –. 10.1038/scientificamerican0960‑88
     https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0960-88 [Google Scholar]
  58. Horn, L. R.
    (2001) A natural story of negation. The David Hume Series. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Jespersen, O.
    (1931) A Modern English Grammar. Syntax. Third volume. Time and Tense. Vol.. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Johnson, S.
    (2019) Attachment Theory in Practice: Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT) with Individuals, Couples and Families. New York City: The Guildford Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Koenig, J.-P., Mauner, G. & Bienvenue, B.
    (2003) Arguments for adjuncts. Cognition, pp.–. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(03)00082‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00082-9 [Google Scholar]
  62. Kratzer, A.
    (1978) Semantik der Rede: Kontexttheorie — Modalwörter — Konditionalsätze. Königstein/Ts.: Scriptor.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. (1981) The notional category of modality. InWords, worlds and contexts. New approaches in World Semantics. H.-J. Eikmeyer & H. Rieser (eds.) (pp.–). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110842524‑004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110842524-004 [Google Scholar]
  64. (1991) Modality. InSemantik. Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (eds.). (pp.–). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110126969.7.639
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110126969.7.639 [Google Scholar]
  65. Kremsmayr, T.
    (2024) Oxytocin Verbindungen zur oralen Behandlung von Bauchschmerzen. Angewandte Chemie. 10.1002/ange.202415333
     https://doi.org/10.1002/ange.202415333 [Google Scholar]
  66. Krifka, M.
    (2023) Layers of assertive clauses: propositions, judgements, commitments, acts. InPropositionale Argumente im Sprachvergleich/Propositional Arguments in Cross-Linguistic Research: Theorie und Empirie/Theoretical and Empirical Issues. J. Hartmann & A. Wöllstein. [Studien zur deutschen Sprache 84]. (pp.–). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 10.24053/9783823394105
     https://doi.org/10.24053/9783823394105 [Google Scholar]
  67. Kringelbach, M. L. & Rolls, E. T.
    (2004) The functional neuroanatomy of the human orbitofrontal cortex: evidence from neuroimaging and neuropsychology. Progress in Neurobiology, –. 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2004.03.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2004.03.006 [Google Scholar]
  68. Larson, R. K.
    (1983) Restrictive Modification: Relative Clauses and Adverbs. PhD-thesis. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Leys, O.
    (1991) Skizze einer kognitiv-semantischen Typologie der deutschen ‘um’-Infinitive. Leuvense Bijdragen, –.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Libet, B.
    (1985) Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, –. 10.1017/S0140525X00044903
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00044903 [Google Scholar]
  71. Lowen, A.
    (1985) Narcissism. Denial of the true self. New York: Touchstone.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. MacFarlane, J.
    (2011) What is assertion?InAssertion. J. Brown and H. Cappelen (eds). (pp.–). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573004.003.0004
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573004.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  73. Maché, Jakob
    (2013) On black magic. How epistemic modifiers emerge. PhD-thesis. Freie Universität Berlin. 10.17169/refubium‑5145
     https://doi.org/10.17169/refubium-5145 [Google Scholar]
  74. (2019) Germanische Bedürfnisverben im Wandel. Ms. Humboldt Universität.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. (2021) Braucht das epistemisch zu sein? Wie Infinitivmorphologie, Negation und lexikalische Semantik die Interpretation von Notwendigkeitsverben in Korpusdaten bestimmen. Linguistische Berichte, –. 10.46771/2366077500267_2
     https://doi.org/10.46771/2366077500267_2 [Google Scholar]
  76. Marcuse, H.
    (1964) One-dimensional man. Studies in the ideology of advanced society. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Maslow, A. H.
    (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, –. 10.1037/h0054346
     https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346 [Google Scholar]
  78. Miyagawa, S.
    (2022) Syntax in the Treetops. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 85. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/14421.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/14421.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  79. Moltmann, F.
    (1997) Intensional Verbs and Quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics, –. 10.1023/A:1008245409172
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008245409172 [Google Scholar]
  80. (2008) Intensional Verbs and their Objects. Natural Language Semantics, –. 10.1007/s11050‑008‑9031‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-008-9031-5 [Google Scholar]
  81. (2013) Abstract Objects and the Semantics of Natural Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199608744.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199608744.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  82. Neidle, C.
    (1988) The Role of Case in Russian Syntax. [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10]. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑2703‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2703-2 [Google Scholar]
  83. Öhlschläger, G.
    (1989) Zur Syntax und Semantik der Modalverben. [Linguistische Arbeiten 144]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Palmer, F. R.
    (1986) Mood and modality. Cambridge Text Books in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139167178
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178 [Google Scholar]
  85. Paul, H.
    (1920) Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. 8th ed.Tübingen: Niemeyer.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Pika, S.
    (2005) The gestural communication of apes. Gesture, –. 10.1075/gest.5.1.05pik
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.5.1.05pik [Google Scholar]
  87. Poesio, M. & Traum, D. R.
    (1998) Towards an axiomatization of dialogue acts. Proceedings of the Twente Workshop on the Formal Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogues. Enschede, –.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Portner, P.
    (2009) Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199292424.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199292424.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  89. Quine, W. V. O.
    (1956) Quantifiers and propositional attittudes. Journal of Philosophy, –. 10.2307/2022451
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2022451 [Google Scholar]
  90. (1960) Word and Object. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Raynaud, F.
    (1977) Noch einmal Modalverben!Deutsche Sprache, –.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Remberger, E-M.
    (2010) The evidential shift of WANT. InEvidence from Evidentials. T. Peterson and U. Sauerland (eds.). [UBC Working Papers in Linguistics 25]. (pp.–). Vancouver: University of British Columbia.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Rogers, R. D.
    (1999) Choosing between Small, Likely Rewards and Large, Unlikely Rewards Activates Inferior and Orbital Prefrontal Cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, –. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.19‑20‑09029.1999
     https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.19-20-09029.1999 [Google Scholar]
  94. Ross, J. R.
    (1970) On declarative sentences. InReadings in English Transformational Grammar. R. A. Jacobs and P. S. Rosenbaum (eds.). (pp.–). Waltham, MA: Ginn.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Rossano, F. & K. Liebal
    (2014) “Requests” and “offers” in orangutans and human infants. InRequesting in Social Interaction. P. Drew and E. Couper-Kuhlen (eds.). [Studies in language and social interaction 26]. (pp.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.26.13ros
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26.13ros [Google Scholar]
  96. Schlenker, P., Chemla, E., Arnold, K.
    (2016) Pyow-hack revisited: Two analyses of Putty-nosed monkey alarm calls. Lingua, –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.10.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  97. Schlenker, P., Chemla, E., Cäsar, C.
    (2016) Titi semantics: Context and meaning in Titi monkey call sequences. Natural Language &Linguistic Theory, –. 10.1007/s11049‑016‑9337‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-016-9337-9 [Google Scholar]
  98. Schlenker, P., Chemla, E., Schel, Anne M.,
    (2016) Formal monkey linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, –. 10.1515/tl‑2016‑0001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2016-0001 [Google Scholar]
  99. Schneider, Ekaterina
    (2026) Intranasal Oxytocin and Physical Intimacy for Dermatological Wound Healing and Neuroendocrine Stress: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Psychiatry, p.. 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2025.3705
     https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2025.3705 [Google Scholar]
  100. Schopenhauer, Arthur
    (1819) Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus.
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Schwarz, Florian
    (2006) On needing propositions and looking for Properties. In: Proceedings of SALT XVI I. M. Gibson & J. Howell (eds.). (pp.–). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. 10.3765/salt.v16i0.2946
     https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v16i0.2946 [Google Scholar]
  102. (2020) Intensional Transitive Verbs — I owe you a horse. InThe Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics. D. Gutzmann (eds.). John Wiley & Sons Inc. 10.1002/9781118788516.sem113
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118788516.sem113 [Google Scholar]
  103. Soon, Chun Siong
    (2008) Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. Nature Neuroscience, –. 10.1038/nn.2112
     https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2112 [Google Scholar]
  104. Speas, M.
    (2004) Evidentiality, logophoricity and the syntactic representation of pragmatic features. Lingua, –. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(03)00030‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00030-5 [Google Scholar]
  105. Speas, Peggy and Carol Tenny
    (2003) Configurational properties of point of view roles. InAsymmetry in grammar vol. 1. Syntax and Semantics. A. M. Di Sciullo (ed.). [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 57]. (pp.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/la.57.15spe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.57.15spe [Google Scholar]
  106. Spitz, R. A.
    (1945) Hospitalism: An Inquiry into the Genesis of Psychiatric Conditions in Early Childhood.: The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, –. 10.1080/00797308.1945.11823126
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00797308.1945.11823126 [Google Scholar]
  107. Spitz, R. A. & M. Wolf, K.
    (1946) Anaclitic Depression: An Inquiry into the Genesis of Psychiatric Conditions in Early Childhood, II. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, –. 10.1080/00797308.1946.11823551
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00797308.1946.11823551 [Google Scholar]
  108. Stern, D. N.
    (1985) The interpersonal world of the infant. A view from psychoanalysis. New York City: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Takahashi, J.
    (2020) Oxytocin reverses A β -induced impairment of hippocampal synaptic plasticity in mice. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, –. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2020.04.046
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2020.04.046 [Google Scholar]
  110. Thráinsson, H. & Vikner, S.
    (1995) Modals and double modals in the Scandinavian Languages. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, –.
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Tomasello, M.
    (2014) A natural history of human thinking. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard Universtiy Press. 10.4159/9780674726369
     https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674726369 [Google Scholar]
  112. (2022) The evolution of agency. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/14238.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/14238.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  113. Tomasello, M. and Zuberbühler, K.
    (2002) Primate vocal and gestural communication. InThe cognitive animal: empirical and theoretical perspectives on animal cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT press. 10.7551/mitpress/1885.003.0041
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1885.003.0041 [Google Scholar]
  114. Treiber, H.
    (2021) Macht — ein soziologischer Grundbegriff*. InMacht und Herrschaft. P. Gostmann & P.-U. Merz-Benz (eds.). (pp.–). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. 10.1007/978‑3‑658‑31608‑2_5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31608-2_5 [Google Scholar]
  115. Tronick, E. Z.
    (1989) Emotions and emotional communication in infants. American Psychologist, –. 10.1037/0003‑066X.44.2.112
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.2.112 [Google Scholar]
  116. Truckenbrodt, H.
    (2006) On the semantic motivation of syntactic verb movement to C in German. Theoretical Linguistics, –. 10.1515/TL.2006.018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2006.018 [Google Scholar]
  117. Wasserman, A. H.
    (2022) Oxytocin promotes epicardial cell activation and heart regeneration after cardiac injury. Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology:985298. 10.3389/fcell.2022.985298
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2022.985298 [Google Scholar]
  118. Watzlawick, P.
    (1983) Die erfundene Wirklichkeit. München: Piper.
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Weber, M.
    (1922) Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Erster Teil: die Wirtschaft und die gesellschaftlichen Ordnungen und Mächte. Tübingen: Mohr.
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Welke, K.
    (1965) Untersuchungen zum System der Modalverben in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart. [Schriften zur Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 10]. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 10.1515/9783112761212
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112761212 [Google Scholar]
  121. Wundt, W.
    (1901) Sprachgeschichte und Sprachpsychologie. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Wurmbrand, S.
    (2001) Infinitives. Restructuring and Clause Structure. [Studies in Generative Grammar 55]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110908329
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110908329 [Google Scholar]
  123. Zaefferer, D.
    (2001) Deconstructing a classical classification: a typological look at Searle’s concept of illocution type. Revue Internationale de Philosophie. –. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23955644. 10.3917/rip.216.0209
     https://doi.org/10.3917/rip.216.0209 [Google Scholar]
  124. Zak, P.l J., Kurzban, R., and Matzner, W. T.
    (2004) The Neurobiology of Trust. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, –. 10.1196/annals.1314.025
     https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1314.025 [Google Scholar]
  125. Zeman, S.
    (2013) Zur Diachronie der Modalverben: sollen zwischen Temporalität, Modalität und Evidentialität. InFunktionen von Modalität. W. Abraham & E. Leiss (eds.). [Linguistik — Impulse & Tendenzen 55]. (pp.–). Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110333091.335
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110333091.335 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00068.mac
Loading
From needing to wanting
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/elt.00068.mac
/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00068.mac
/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00068.mac
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: ‘need’-verbs ; intensional verbs ; speech acts ; intensional transitive verbs ; dynamic modality ; intentionalism ; modal necessity ; comparative psychology ; modality ; volitional modality

Most Cited

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