Graduate studies at Western
Linguistics and Philosophy 32 (4):327-352 (2009)
|Abstract||Some propositional attitude verbs require that the complement contain some “subjective predicate”. In terms of the theory proposed by Lasersohn, these verbs would seem to identify the “judge” of the embedded proposition with the matrix subject, and there have been suggestions in this direction. I show that it is possible to analyze these verbs as setting the judge and doing nothing more; then according to whether a judge index or a judge argument is assumed, unless the complement contains a subjective predicate, the whole matrix is redundant or there is a type conflict. I further show that certain clear facts argue for assuming a judge argument which can be filled by a contextually salient entity–or by the subject of a subjective attitude verb.|
|Keywords||Judgment Propositional attitudes Subjective predicates Personal taste|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Mark T. Nelson (1996). Who Are the Best Judges of Theistic Arguments? Sophia 35 (2):1-12.
Reinhard Muskens (1993). Propositional Attitudes. In R. E. Asher & J. M. Y. Simpson (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Pergamon Press.
Christian Stein (1997). Walker on the Voluntariness of Judgment. Inquiry 40 (2):175 – 186.
Georges Rey (2007). Resisting Normativism in Psychology. In Brian P. McLaughlin & Jonathan D. Cohen (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Mind. Blackwell.
Berit Brogaard (2008). Knowledge-the and Propositional Attitude Ascriptions. Grazer Philosophische Studien 77 (1):147-190.
Steven E. Boër (2009). Propositions and the Substitution Anomaly. Journal of Philosophical Logic 38 (5):549 - 586.
Added to index2009-11-21
Total downloads23 ( #60,196 of 722,951 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 722,951 )
How can I increase my downloads?