Abstract
This paper deals with the semantics of de dicto, de re and de se belief reports. First, I flesh out in some detail the established, classical theories that assume syntactic distinctions between all three types of reports. I then propose a new, unified analysis, based on two ideas discarded by the classical theory. These are: (i) modeling the de re/de dicto distinction as a difference in scope, and (ii) analyzing de se as merely a special case of relational de re attitudes. The resurrection of these ideas takes place in a dynamic setting. My formalization of the first idea involves a modification of the presupposition-as-anaphora resolution algorithm for DRT. The second involves treating acquaintance relations as second-order presuppositions, to be bound in the context by means of higher-order unification, or accommodated if necessary. The resulting framework requires no syntactic distinctions between different modes of attitude, with the exception of a specific subclass of de se reports characterized by special ‘de se pronouns’ (i.e. PRO and logophors). These special pronouns are handled in syntax; everything alse is passed on to the pragmatic resolution module as it appears on the surface. The more sophisticated contextual resolution process nonetheless ensures adequate output truth conditions for a variety of classical and novel puzzles. In particular, I compare the new pragmasemantic system to the classical, syntactic analysis with respect to iterated and quantified reports, and monstrously shifted indexicals.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Abusch D. (1997) Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy 20(1): 1–50
Aloni, M. (2000). Quantification under conceptual covers. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.
Anand, P. (2006). De de se. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.
Anand, P., & Nevins, A. (2004). Shifty operators in changing contexts. In R. Young (Ed.), Proceedings of SALT XIV. Cornell, NY: CLC.
Bary, C., & Maier, E. (2009). The dynamics of tense under attitudes: Anaphoricity and de se interpretation in the backward shifted past. In H. Hattori et al. (Eds.), New frontiers in artificial intelligence, LNCS (Vol. 5447). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
Castañeda H. (1966) ‘He’: A study in the logic of self-consciousness. Ratio 8: 130–157
Chierchia, G. (1989). Anaphora and attitudes de se. In R. Bartsch etal. (Eds.), Semantics and contextual expression, Groningen-Amsterdam Studies in semantics, (Vol. 11). Dordrecht: Foris.
Cresswell M., von Stechow A. (1982) De re belief generalized. Linguistics and Philosophy 5(4): 503–535
Dalrymple M., Shieber S., Pereira F. (1991) Ellipsis and higher-order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(4): 399–452
Geurts, B. (1999). Presuppositions and pronouns, current research in the semantics/pragmatics interface, (Vol. 3). Oxford, London: Elsevier.
Haas-Spohn, U. (1994). Versteckte Indexicalität und subjective Bedeutung. Ph. D. thesis, Universität Tu¨bingen. English translation at http://www2.sfs.nphil.uni-tuebingen.de/Alumni/Dissertationen/ul-lidiss/.
Hintikka, J. (1967). On the logic of perception. In N. S. Care & R. M. Grimm (Eds.), Perception and personal identity. The Press of Case Western Reserve University. (Reprinted by J. Hintikka, Ed., (1969) Models for modalities, Dordrecht: Reidel.
Huet G. (1975) A unification algorithm for typed lambda-calculus. Theoretical Computer Science 1: 27–57
Hunter, J., & Asher, N. (2005). A presuppositional account of indexicals. In P. Dekke & M. Franke (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth Amsterdam Colloquium, (pp. 119–124). Amsterdam: ILLC.
Kamp H. et al (1981) A theory of truth and semantic representation. In: Groenendijk J.A. (eds) Formal methods in the study of language. Foris, Dordrecht
Kamp H., Reyle U. (1993) From discourse to logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Kaplan D. (1969) Quantifying in. In: Davidson D., Hintikka J. (eds) Words and objections. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht
Kaplan D. et al (1989) Demonstratives. In: Almog J. (eds) Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 481–614
Kripke S. (1972) Naming and necessity. In: Harman G., Davidson D. (eds) Semantics of natural language. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 253–355
Lakoff G. (1972) Linguistics and natural logic. In: Harman G., Davidson D. (eds) Semantics of natural language. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 545–665
Leslau W. (1995) Reference grammar of Amharic. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden
Lewis D. (1979) Attitudes de dicto and de se. The Philosophical Review 88: 513–543
Maier, E. (2006). Belief in context: Towards a unified semantics of de re and de se attitude reports. Ph.D. thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen.
Maier E. (2009) Proper names and indexicals trigger rigid presuppositions. Journal of Semantics 26: 253–315
Partee, B. (1989). Binding implicit variables in quantified contexts. In CLS vol. 25, Chicago, pp. 342–365.
Percus, O., & Sauerland, U. (2003a). On the LFs of attitude reports. In M. Weisgerber (Ed.), Proceedings of SUB 7. Konstanz.
Percus, O., & Sauerland, U. (2003b). Pronoun movement in dream reports. In M. Kadowaki & S. Kawahara (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 33. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Perry J. (1977) Frege on demonstratives. The Philosophical Review 86(4): 474–497
Quine W.V. (1956) Quantifiers and propositional attitudes. Journal of Philosophy 53: 101–111
Reinhart, T. (1990). Self-representation. Lecture delivered at Princeton conference on anaphora, October 1990. Ms.
Schlenker P. (2003) A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 29–120
Schlenker P. (2004) Person and binding (a partial survey). Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica 16: 155–218
Schlenker, P. (to appear). Indexicals and de se reports. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn, & P. Portner (Eds.), Handbook of Semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. http://files.nyu.edu/pds4/public/Schlenker-Indexicality_and_De_Se.pdf.
van der Sandt R. (1992) Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9: 333–377
von Stechow, A. (2002). Binding by verbs: Tense, person and mood under attitudes. In M. Kadowaki, & S. Kawahara (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 33 (pp. 379–403). Amherst, MA: GLSA.
von Stechow, A., & Zimmermann, T. E. (2005). A problem for a compositional account of de re attitudes. In G. Carlson, & F. Pelletier (Eds.), Reference and Quantification: The Partee effect (pp. 207–228). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Acknowledgements
I thank Rob van der Sandt, Bart Geurts, Ede Zimmermann, and Philippe Schlenker for helpful discussions. Furthermore, I thank the anonymous referee and the editor for very constructive comments. This research is supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).
Open Access
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
About this article
Cite this article
Maier, E. Presupposing acquaintance: a unified semantics for de dicto, de re and de se belief reports. Linguist and Philos 32, 429–474 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-010-9065-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-010-9065-2