1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Lingvisticæ Investigationes
  4. Volume 48, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 48, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0378-4169
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9927
EPUB
PDF

Abstract

Summary

Subject obviation is a restriction on having coreferential subjects in sentences like ‘I want that I leave’. In this paper, I defend the view that sentences with subject obviation are deviant because they violate the principle of non-triviality. This principle disallows the ascription of propositions whose content does not exclude any possibility from a belief state. I argue that embedded propositions in obviative sentences involve self-locating information (information about who and where we are in the world), which leads to a violation of non-triviality in certain attitude ascriptions. I show that sentences with subject obviation are deviant for the same reason as when the speaker has no doubts about her sanity.

© 2025 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/li.00121.gon
2025-10-03
2025-11-13

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/li.00121.gon
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/li.00121.gon.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/li.00121.gon&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Anand P. & Hacquard V.
    (2013) Epistemics and attitudes. Semantics and Pragmatics, 61. 10.3765/sp.6.8
     https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.6.8 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anscombe G. E. M.
    (1957) Intention. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bouchard D.
    (1983) The avoid pronoun principle and the elsewhere principle. InProceedings of NELS131, p.29–36, Amherst: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Cappelen H. & Dever J.
    (2013) The Inessential Indexical: On the Philosophical Insignificance of Perspective and the First Person. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199686742.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199686742.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Castañeda H.-N.
    (1966) ’he’: A study in the logic of self-consciousness. Ratio, 81, 130–157.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Chierchia G.
    (1989) Anaphor and attitudes de se. InV. B. Bartsch & van Emde Boas, Eds., Semantics and Contextual Expressions, p.1–31. Kluwer/Reidel. 10.1515/9783110877335‑002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110877335-002 [Google Scholar]
  7. Costantini F.
    (2006) Subjunctive obviation: an interface perspective. PhD thesis, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. (2016) Subject obviation as a semantic failure: a preliminary account. Annali di Ca’ Foscari. Serie occidentale, 501, 109–131.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. (2023) On some epistemic access effects. InJ. Goncharov & H. Zeijlstra, Eds., Agency and Intentions in Language, volume61 of Brill Research Perspectives in Linguistics. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004679818_004
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004679818_004 [Google Scholar]
  10. Farkas D. F.
    (1988) On obligatory control. Linguistics and Philosophy, 11(1), 27–58. 10.1007/BF00635756
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00635756 [Google Scholar]
  11. (1992) On obviation. InI. A. Sag & A. Szabolcsi, Eds., Lexical Matters, chapter 4, p.85–110. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Godfrey-Smith P.
    (2020) Metazoa: Animal Minds and the Birth of Consciousness. Harper Collins.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Goncharov J.
    (forthcoming). Decisive modality and intentionality effect. Canadian Journal of Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Heim I.
    (1992) Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics, 9(3), 183–221. 10.1093/jos/9.3.183
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/9.3.183 [Google Scholar]
  15. Higginbotham J.
    (2003) Remembering, imagining, and the first person. InA. Barber, Ed., Epistemology of Language, p.496–533. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199250578.003.0016
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199250578.003.0016 [Google Scholar]
  16. Jackson F.
    (1982) Epiphenomenal qualia. Philosophical Quarterly, 321, 127–36. 10.2307/2960077
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2960077 [Google Scholar]
  17. Kaufmann M.
    (2019) Who controls who (or what). Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 291, 636–664. 10.3765/salt.v29i0.4643
     https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v29i0.4643 [Google Scholar]
  18. Kempchinsky P.
    (1986) Romance subjunctive clauses and logical form. PhD thesis, UCLA.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. (2009) What can the subjunctive disjoint reference effect tell us about the subjunctive?Lingua, 119(12), 1788–1810. 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.11.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.11.009 [Google Scholar]
  20. Lewis D.
    (1973) Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. (1979) Attitudes de dicto and de se. The Philosophical Review, 88(4), 513–543. 10.2307/2184843
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2184843 [Google Scholar]
  22. Morgan J.
    (1970) On the criterion of identity for noun phrase deletion. Chicago Linguistic Society, 61, 380–389.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Ninan D.
    (2010) De se attitudes: Ascription and communication. Philosophy Compass, 5(7), 551–567. 10.1111/j.1747‑9991.2010.00290.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00290.x [Google Scholar]
  24. Oikonomou D.
    (2016) Covert modals in root contexts. PhD thesis, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Perry J.
    (1977) Frege on demonstratives. The Philosophical Review, 86(4), 474–497. 10.2307/2184564
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2184564 [Google Scholar]
  26. (1979) The problem of the essential indexical. Noûs, 13(1), 3–21. 10.2307/2214792
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2214792 [Google Scholar]
  27. (1999) Knowledge, Possibility and Consciousness. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Picallo C.
    (1985) Opaque domains. PhD thesis, CUNY.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Roberts C. & Simons M.
    (2024) Preconditions and projection: Explaining non-anaphoric presupposition. Linguistics and Philosophy, 47(4), 703–748. 10.1007/s10988‑024‑09413‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-024-09413-9 [Google Scholar]
  30. Ruwet N.
    (1984) Je veux partir/* je veux que je parte. à propos de la distribution des complétives à temps fini et des compléments à l’infinitif en français. Cahiers de grammaire, 71, 74–138.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. (1991) Je veux partir/Je veux que je parte: On the Distribution of Finite Complements and Infinitival Complements in French, InSyntax and Human Experience, p.1–55. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Schlenker P.
    (2005) The lazy Frenchman’s approach to the subjunctive. InRomance Languages and Linguistic Theory, p.269–309. 10.1075/cilt.270.15sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.270.15sch [Google Scholar]
  33. Simons M., Beaver D., Roberts C. & Tonhauser J.
    (2016) The best question: Explaining the projection behavior of factives. Discourse Processes, 54(3), 187–206. 10.1080/0163853X.2016.1150660
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2016.1150660 [Google Scholar]
  34. Stalnaker R. C.
    (1968) A theory of conditionals. InN. Rescher, Ed., Studies in Logical Theory (American Philosophical Quarterly Monographs 2), p.98–112. Blackwell. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑9117‑0_2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9117-0_2 [Google Scholar]
  35. (1978) Assertion. Syntax and Semantics, 91, 315–332. 10.1163/9789004368873_013
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368873_013 [Google Scholar]
  36. (1984) Inquiry. Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. (1988) Belief attribution and context. InR. Grimm & D. Merrill, Eds., Contents of Thought, p.140–156. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. (1999) Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/0198237073.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/0198237073.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2008) Our Knowledge of the Internal World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199545995.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199545995.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  40. (2014) Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199645169.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199645169.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  41. Stegovec A.
    (2019) Perspectival control and obviation in directive clauses. Natural Language Semantics, 27(1), 47–94. 10.1007/s11050‑019‑09150‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-019-09150-x [Google Scholar]
  42. Szabolcsi A.
    (2010) Infinitives vs. subjunctives: What do we learn from obviation and from exemptions from obviation?URLgoo.gl/c16gIPms. New York University.
  43. (2021) Obviation in Hungarian: what is its scope, and is it due to competition?Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 6(1), 1–28.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Tonhauser J., Beaver D., Roberts C. & Simons M.
    (2013) Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language, 89(1), 66–109. 10.1353/lan.2013.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0001 [Google Scholar]
  45. Villalta E.
    (2008) Mood and gradability: an investigation of the subjunctive mood in spanish. Linguistics and Philosophy, 311, 467–522. 10.1007/s10988‑008‑9046‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9046-x [Google Scholar]
  46. von Fintel K.
    (1999) NPI licensing, Strawson entailment, and context dependency. Journal of Semantics, 16(2), 97–148. 10.1093/jos/16.2.97
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/16.2.97 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/li.00121.gon
Loading
Subject obviation and self-locating knowledge
Lingvisticæ Investigationes 48, 8 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00121.gon
/content/journals/10.1075/li.00121.gon
/content/journals/10.1075/li.00121.gon
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): non-triviality; pragmatics; reference; subject obviation; subjunctive

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