Abstract
Clause-embedding predicates come in three major varieties: (i) responsive predicates (e.g. know) are compatible with both declarative and interrogative complements; (ii) rogative predicates (e.g. wonder) are only compatible with interrogative complements; and (iii) anti-rogative predicates (e.g. hope) are only compatible with declarative complements. It has been suggested that these selectional properties are at least partly semantic in nature. In particular, it has been proposed that the anti-rogativity of neg-raising predicates like believe comes from the triviality in meaning that would arise with interrogative complements. This paper puts forward a similar semantic explanation for non-veridical preferential predicates such as hope, which are anti-rogative, unlike their veridical counterparts such as be happy, which are responsive.
Highlights
Clause-embedding predicates can be classified into three types (Grimshaw 1979; Lahiri 2002; Theiler et al 2019): We would like to thank Sam Alxatib, Dominique Blok, Alexandre Cremers, Kajsa Djärv, Patrick D
The rationale behind this principle is to ensure that our account of selectional restrictions with respect to a certain clause type is explanatory in the sense that it is based on independently motivated lexical semantics
The embedding of an interrogative complement under a non-veridical preferential predicate with the existential semantics we developed in Sect. 3 predicts triviality, as long as the question denotation and the set of focus alternatives are equivalent
Summary
Clause-embedding predicates can be classified into three types (Grimshaw 1979; Lahiri 2002; Theiler et al 2019): We would like to thank Sam Alxatib, Dominique Blok, Alexandre Cremers, Kajsa Djärv, Patrick D. As originally noticed by Zuber (1982), neg-raising predicates are generally anti-rogative (e.g. believe, think, expect, assume, presume, reckon, advisable, desirable, likely) To explain this generalization, Theiler et al (2019) and Mayr (2019) put forward semantic accounts according to which such predicates give rise to logically trivial interpretations with interrogative complements, due to their negraising property. We will develop a semantic analysis of the anti-rogativity of non-veridical preferential predicates like hope. If successful, it will complement the aforementioned analyses of the anti-rogativity of neg-raising predicates.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have