This seminar will focus on the semantics of propositional attitudes reports. We will begin by examining the basic question of what attitudes ascriptions are, syntactically and semantically. On the traditional view they express a relationship between an attitude holder and a proposition. We will critically examine the motivations for this view and explore an alternative framework. Other topics will include the semantics of desire reports and the role of presuppositions in attitude ascriptions.
Nathan Klinedinst, Linguistics
Angelika Kratzer, Philosophy
Daniel Rothschild, Philosophy
Yasu Sudo, Linguistics
The seminar meets Fridays 2-4pm, in Chandler House B01. The first meeting is 5 October; there is no meeting on 8 Nov; the last meeting is 14 Dec.
Enrolled students must submit a term paper on a topic covered for credit.
All are welcome!
Basic: Hazel Pearson, Attitude Verbs
Angelika Kratzer, Attitude Ascriptions (Althuser volume)
More advanced: von Fintel and Heim, Intensional Semantics
SESSION 1: 5 OCT
CONSTRUCTING ATTITUDE AND SPEECH REPORTS 1 (AK)
Slides and other materials can be found here.
SESSION 2: 12 OCT
CONSTRUCTING ATTITUDE AND SPEECH REPORTS 2 (AK)
Slides and other materials can be found here.
SESSION 3: 19 OCT
CONSTRUCTING ATTITUDE AND SPEECH REPORTS 3 (AK)
SESSION 4: 26 OCT
SMALL CLAUSES (AK)
SESSION 5: 2 NOV
ZIMMERMANN ON MONOTONICITY (DR & NK), DESIRE AND MONOTONICITY (YS)
Zimmermann article is here in Opaque Object Position folder, handout. See also this SEP article on intensional transitives by Forbes.
Desire: Appendix to Luka Crnič’s dissertation and handout by Kai von Fintel.
Slides.
SESSION 6: 16 NOV
DESIRE CONT (YS)
handout
SESSION 7: 23 NOV
BELIEF AND PROBABILITY (DR)
Hawthorne, Spectre, Rothschild Belief is weak
Rothschild What it Takes to Believe
SESSION 8: 30 NOV
GREG WILLIAMSON; MODIFYING ATTITUDES (AK & DR)
Primary readings for Greg’s part: Abusch 2004
Secondary: Klecha 2016, Laca
SESSION 9: 7 DEC
VISITOR: ROB PASTERNAK: DESIRE, GREAT AND SMALL
SESSION 10: 14 DEC
VISITOR: PATRICK ELLIOTT: ARGUMENTS AND ATTITUDES
Abstract: Since Kratzer’s (2006) seminal work, the conjecture that embedded that-clauses denote predicates of contentful entities has been a recurring theme in the literature on attitude ascriptions. In this seminar, I’ll outline a particular take on this idea from Elliott (2018), which marries Kratzer’s semantics for embedded that-clauses with a neo-Davidsonian semantics for attitude verbs. We’ll discuss some concrete linguistic arguments for this world view, and relate it to the broad philosophical literature on substitution failures (Prior 1971, a.o.).
References
- Elliott, P. D. (2018). Elements of Clausal Embedding. PhD thesis, UCL.
- Kratzer, A. (2006). Decomposing Attitude Verbs. Unpublished manuscript.
- Prior, A. (1971). Objects of Thought. OUP.
Some suggested readings:
- Pietroski, P. (2002). On explaining that. Journal of Philosophy 97(12), 655-662.
- Pryor, J. (2007). Reasons and that-clauses. Philosophical Issues 17(1), 217–244.
- Forbes, G. (2018). Content and theme in attitude ascriptions. In: A. Grzankowski and M. Montague (eds) Non-Propositional Intentionality, OUP.
Image: Oskar Schlemmer, Raumtanz, Diagramm für Gestentanz, 1926