東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

How to Make Believe: Inquisitivity, Veridicality, and Evidentiality in Belief Reports.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	How to Make Believe: Inquisitivity, Veridicality, and Evidentiality in Belief Reports./
Author:	Roberts, Thomas de Haven.
Published:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2021,
Description:	214 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-05, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International83-05A.
Subject:	Linguistics. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28720804
ISBN:	9798492753535

How to Make Believe: Inquisitivity, Veridicality, and Evidentiality in Belief Reports.
Roberts, Thomas de Haven.

How to Make Believe: Inquisitivity, Veridicality, and Evidentiality in Belief Reports. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2021 - 214 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-05, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of California, Santa Cruz, 2021.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

This dissertation explores, through three case studies, the relationship between the lexical semantics of clausal embedding (CE) predicates, and the syntactic and pragmatic restrictions on their complements, such as the (in)ability of certain predicates to embed declarative clauses or nominal expressions. I propose that these restrictions arise from interactions between fine-grained aspects of predicate meaning and the linguistic environment in which those predicates occur, rather than being stipulated into predicates' lexical entries via restrictions on permissible semantic types or semantic categories of their arguments (e.g. Grimshaw 1979, Pesetsky 1982, 1991) or resulting from polysemy or ambiguity of CE predicates (e.g. George 2011). First, I examine the Estonian verb motlema, which has a believe-like interpretation with an embedded declarative, and a wonder-like interpretation with embedded declaratives. I show that this behavior can be derived straightforwardly only if declaratives and interrogatives are typewise identical, i.e. sets of sets of worlds (Hamblin 1973, Ciardelli et al. 2013), and \extit{motlema} denotes an ontologically primitive attitude of 'contemplation'.Second, I analyze the behavior of English believe, which cannot embed interrogatives except under a combination of modal and nonveridical operators, such as can't. I propose that the apparent 'lifting' of selectional restrictions of believe in some contexts, as well as other unexpected properties of the can't believe construction, can be understood compositionally: believe can in fact compose with interrogative clauses in principle, but doing so normally results in systematically trivial meanings (Theiler et al. 2019). By placing believe under the right combination of operators, this triviality can be obviated (see Mayr 2019).Finally, I develop a semantic account of verbs like believe and trust, which can embed variety of nominal expressions alongside clauses, posing a compositional puzzle (Djarv 2019). I propose that these predicates are a kind of weak response-stance predicates (Cattell 1978), in that they presuppose an evidential source of the relevant attitude, which can be spelled out as a direct object. I take this to suggest a tight link between argument structure of belief predicates and their external syntactic distribution.

ISBN: 9798492753535Subjects--Topical Terms:

524476
Linguistics.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Argument structure

How to Make Believe: Inquisitivity, Veridicality, and Evidentiality in Belief Reports.
LDR:03511nmm a2200373 4500 001 2351111
005 20221107085257.5
008 241004s2021 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798492753535
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI28720804
035 $a AAI28720804
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Roberts, Thomas de Haven. $3 3347213
245 1 0 $a How to Make Believe: Inquisitivity, Veridicality, and Evidentiality in Belief Reports.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2021
300 $a 214 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-05, Section: A.
500 $a Advisor: Anand, Pranav.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of California, Santa Cruz, 2021.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
520 $a This dissertation explores, through three case studies, the relationship between the lexical semantics of clausal embedding (CE) predicates, and the syntactic and pragmatic restrictions on their complements, such as the (in)ability of certain predicates to embed declarative clauses or nominal expressions. I propose that these restrictions arise from interactions between fine-grained aspects of predicate meaning and the linguistic environment in which those predicates occur, rather than being stipulated into predicates' lexical entries via restrictions on permissible semantic types or semantic categories of their arguments (e.g. Grimshaw 1979, Pesetsky 1982, 1991) or resulting from polysemy or ambiguity of CE predicates (e.g. George 2011). First, I examine the Estonian verb motlema, which has a believe-like interpretation with an embedded declarative, and a wonder-like interpretation with embedded declaratives. I show that this behavior can be derived straightforwardly only if declaratives and interrogatives are typewise identical, i.e. sets of sets of worlds (Hamblin 1973, Ciardelli et al. 2013), and \extit{motlema} denotes an ontologically primitive attitude of 'contemplation'.Second, I analyze the behavior of English believe, which cannot embed interrogatives except under a combination of modal and nonveridical operators, such as can't. I propose that the apparent 'lifting' of selectional restrictions of believe in some contexts, as well as other unexpected properties of the can't believe construction, can be understood compositionally: believe can in fact compose with interrogative clauses in principle, but doing so normally results in systematically trivial meanings (Theiler et al. 2019). By placing believe under the right combination of operators, this triviality can be obviated (see Mayr 2019).Finally, I develop a semantic account of verbs like believe and trust, which can embed variety of nominal expressions alongside clauses, posing a compositional puzzle (Djarv 2019). I propose that these predicates are a kind of weak response-stance predicates (Cattell 1978), in that they presuppose an evidential source of the relevant attitude, which can be spelled out as a direct object. I take this to suggest a tight link between argument structure of belief predicates and their external syntactic distribution.
590 $a School code: 0036.
650 4 $a Linguistics. $3 524476
650 4 $a Rhetoric. $3 516647
650 4 $a Language. $3 643551
653 $a Argument structure
653 $a Attitudes
653 $a Belief
653 $a Causal embedding
653 $a Semantics
690 $a 0290
690 $a 0681
690 $a 0679
710 2 $a University of California, Santa Cruz. $b Linguistics. $3 2104170
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 83-05A.
790 $a 0036
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2021
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28720804