Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Monotonicity in opaque verbs

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper is about the interpretation of opaque verbs like “seek”, “owe”, and “resemble” which allow for unspecific readings of their (indefinite) objects. It is shown that the following two observations create a problem for semantic analysis:

  1. (a)

    The opaque position is upward monotone: “John seeks a unicorn” implies “John seeks an animal”, given that “unicorn” is more specific than “animal”.

  2. (b)

    Indefinite objects of opaque verbs allow for higher-order, or “underspecific”, readings: “Jones is looking for something Smith is looking for” can express that there is something unspecific that both Jones and Smith are looking for.

Given (a) and (b), it would seem that the following inference is hard to escape, if the premisses are construed unspecifically and the conclusion is taken on its under- specific reading:

  • Jones is looking for a sweater.

  • Smith is looking for a pen.

  • Smith is looking for something Jones is looking for.

It is shown that this monotonicity problem can be solved by analyzing unspecific readings as existential quantifications over the sub-properties of the property expressed by their object.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • van Benthem J. (1995). Language in action (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA, MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Buridanus, J. (1977). Sophismata. Stuttgart. Fromman-Holzboog [originally Paris 1350; English translation: Sophisms on Meaning and Truth. New York 1966.

  • Burton, S. (1995). Six issues in choosing a husband: Possessive relations in the lexical semantic structures of verbs. Rutgers University dissertation.

  • Carlson, G. N. (1977). Reference to kinds in English. University of Massachusetts dissertation.

  • Condoravdi, C., Crouch, D., & van den Berg, M. (2001a). Preventing existence. In Proceedings of the international conference on formal ontology in information systems. (pp. 162-173). Ogunquit, Maine.

  • Condoravdi, C., Crouch, D., & van den Berg, M. (2001b). Counting concepts. In Proceedings of the 13th Amsterdam colloquium. (pp. 67-72). Amsterdam.

  • Cooper R. (2005). Austinian truth, attitudes and type theory. Research on Language and Computation 3: 333–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson D. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. In: Rescher N. (eds) The logic of decision and action. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, pp 81–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Forbes G., (2003). Meaning postulates, inference, and the relational/notional ambiguity. Facta Philosophica 5: 49-74

    Google Scholar 

  • Geach P. (1965). A medieval discussion of intentionality. In: Bar-Hiliel Y. (eds) Logic, methodology and philosophy of science. Amsterdam, North Holland, pp 425–433

    Google Scholar 

  • Geach P., (1967). Intentional identity. Journal of Philosophy 64: 627-632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geurts B., (2005). Entertaining alternatives: Disjunctions as modals. Natural Language Semantics 13: 383-410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grice P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford, Blackwell

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka J. (1969). Semantics for propositional attitudes. In: Davis J.W. et al. (eds) Philosophical logic. Dordrecht, Reidel, pp 21–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan D., (1968). Quantifying in. Synthese 19: 178-214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan D., (1975). How to Russell a Frege-Church. Journal of Philosophy 72: 716-729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer A. (1991). Modality. In: von Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (eds) Semantics. Berlin, De Gruyter, pp 639–650

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladusaw, W. (1979). Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. University of Texas dissertation.

  • Larson, R., den Dikken, M., & Ludlow, P. (1999). Intensional transitive verbs and abstract clausal complementation. Ms. SUNY at Stony Brook. http://semlab2.sbs.sunysb.edu/Users/rlarson/ itv.pdf].

  • Lasersohn P., (1999). Pragmatic halos. Language 75: 522-551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner J.-Y., Zimmermann T.E. (1983). Presupposition and quantifiers. In: Bäuerle R. et al. (eds) Meaning, use, and interpretation of language. Berlin, De Gruyter, pp 290–301

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Oxford, Blackwell

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D., (1979a). Attitudes de dicto and de se. Philosophical Review 88: 513-543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D., (1981). What puzzling Pierre does not believe. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 59: 283-289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makinson D., (1984) ’Stenius’ approach to disjunctive permission. Theoria 50: 136-147

    Google Scholar 

  • May R. (1985). Logical form. Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Moltmann F., (1997). Intensional verbs and quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics 5: 1-52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montague R., (1969). On the nature of certain philosophical entities. Monist 53: 159-195

    Google Scholar 

  • Montague R., (1970). Universal grammar. Theoria 36: 373-398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montague R. (1973). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In: Hintikka J. et al. (eds) Approaches to natural language. Dordrecht, Reidel, pp 221–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Moschovakis Y. (1974). Elementary induction on abstract stuctures. Amsterdam, North-Holland Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons T., (1990). Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee B. (1987). Noun phrase interpretation and type shifting principles. In Groenendijk J. et al. (eds) Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers. Berlin: De Gruyter., pp 115–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee B., Rooth M. (1983). Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In: Bäuerle R. et al. (eds) Meaning, use, and interpretation of language. Berlin, De Gruyter, pp 361–383

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine W.V.O., (1956). Quantifiers and propositional attitudes. Journal of Philosophy 53: 177-187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quine W.V.O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • van Rooy, R., & Zimmermann, T. E. (1996). An externalist account of intentional identity. In K. von Heusinger & U. Egli (Eds.), Proceedings of the Konstanz workshop ’reference and anaphorical relations’. (pp. 123-136). Arbeitspapier Nr. 79 der Fachgruppe Sprachwissenschaft, Universitä t Konstanz. [http://www.uh.uni-konstanz.de/kops/volltexte/2000/508/pdflap079 7.pdf]

  • Russell B. (1905). On denoting. Mind 14: 479-493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauerland, U. (2004). A new semantics for number. In R. Young & Y. Zhou (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT, (Vol. 13). Cornell University.

  • Stalnaker R. (1968). A theory of conditionals. In: Rescher N. (eds) Studies in logical theory. Oxford, Blackwell, pp 41–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker R. (1999). Context and content. Oxford, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow A. (2001). Temporally opaque arguments in verbs of creation. In: Cecchetto B. et al. (eds) Semantic interfaces: reference, anaphora, aspect. Stanford, CSL, pp 278–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter Y. (2001). Flexibility principles in Boolean semantics. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Zalta E.N. (1988). Intensional logic and the metaphysics of intentionality. Cambridge MA, MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann T.E., (1993). On the proper treatment of opacity in certain verbs. Natural Language Semantics 1: 149-179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann T.E., (2000). Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8: 255-290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann T.E. (2005). Coercion vs. indeterminacy in opaque verbs. In: Kahle R. (eds) Intensionality. Natick, MA, AK Peters, pp 217–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, T. E. (2006). Quaint paint. In H.-M. Gärtner et al. (Eds.), Between 40 and 60 puzzles for Krifka. Internet publication [http://www.zas.gwz-berlin.de/40-60-puzzles-for-krifka/pdf/ zimmermann.pdf]

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Deutsche Sprache, Johann Wolfgang Goethe Univ, Gruneburgplatz 1, Frankfurt, D-60629, Germany

    Thomas Ede Zimmermann

Authors
  1. Thomas Ede Zimmermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Ede Zimmermann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zimmermann, T.E. Monotonicity in opaque verbs. Linguistics & Philosophy 29, 715–761 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-006-9009-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-006-9009-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation