Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2016
Edited by Jenny Audring and Sander Lestrade
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 33] 2016
► pp. 14–27

Expressing generic and transitory opinions in Greek

A semantic analysis of the verbs theoro and vrisko

| Utrecht University

This paper investigates the semantics of the Greek subjective attitude verbs vrisko (‘find’) and theoro (‘consider’). I present data from Greek where both verbs embed small clauses including evaluative adjectives (‘tasty’, ‘attractive’) and I develop a tentative analysis for each verb following Sæbø’s (2009) account of find and Chierchia’s (1995) analysis for generic predicates. I propose that: a) vrisko is a stage-level subjective verb expressing transitory opinions about objects of evaluation as viewed within a particular experience situation; b) theoro is an individual-level subjective verb expressing generic opinions about objects of evaluation as realised across various experience situations. This approach explains the observed contrasts between the two verbs. Moreover, it shows that the individual- and stage- level distinction is manifested in attitude verbs and that language employs distinct verbs depending on how an object of evaluation is viewed by the relevant judge.

Keywords: semantics, subjectivity, attitude verbs, genericity, experience
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background on subjective expressions
  • 3.Hypothesis
    • 3.1Terminology
  • 4. Theoro as an inherent generic
    • 4.1 Theoro, vrisko and ILP-properties
    • 4.2 Theoro in connection with find -semantics
    • 4.3Semantics of vrisko
    • 4.4Semantics of theoro
      • 4.4.1Restriction
      • 4.4.2Scope
    • 4.5 Theoro and vrisko in Aorist
  • 5.Conclusions and further discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 21 December 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.33.02bim
References
Bouchard, David-Étienne
2012 Long-Distance Degree Quantification and the Grammar of Subjectivity. Ph.-D. thesis, McGill University.Google Scholar
Bylinina, Lisa
2014 The grammar of standards: Judge-dependence, purpose-relativity, and comparison classes in degree constructions. (= LOT, 347) Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory
1977 Reference to kinds in English. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro
1995 “Individual-level predicates as inherent generics”. The Generic Book ed. by G.N. Carlson and F.J. Pelletier, 176–223. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G.
1998 “Reference to kinds across languages”. Natural Language Semantics 6: 4. 339–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia
2002 “Licensing and sensitivity in polarity items: From downward entailment to nonveridicality” (= CLS 38-2) ed. by M. Andronis, E. Debenport, A. Pycha & K. Yoshimura, 29–53. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A.
2009 “The dependency of the subjunctive revisited: Temporal semantics and polarity”. Lingua 1191: 12 1883–1908. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher
2012 “Two kinds of subjectivity”. Subjective Meaning ed. by C. Meier and J. Huitink. To appear.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
1995 “Individual-level predicates”. The Generic Book ed. by G.N. Carlson and F.J. Pelletier, 125–175. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred, Pelletier, Francis J., Carlson, Gregory N., Chierchia, Gennaro, Link, Godehard, & ter Meulen, Alice
1995 “Introduction to genericity”. The Generic Book ed. by G.N. Carlson and F.J. Pelletier, 1–124. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lasersohn, P.
2005 “Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste”. Linguistics and Philosophy 28: 6. 643–686. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 “Relative truth, speaker commitment, and control of implicit arguments.” Synthese 166: 2. 359–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sæbø, K. J.
2009 “Judgment ascriptions”. Linguistics and Philosophy 32: 4. 327–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sioupi, Athina
2014 “Result states, target states, and aspectual perfectivity”. Zwischen Kern Und Peripherie: Untersuchungen Zu Randbereichen in Sprache Und Grammatik 76 ed. by A. Machicao y Priemer, A. Nolda and A. Sioupi, 131–156. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Carlota S.
1991 “The parameter of aspect”. (= Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, 43). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, T.
2007 “Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste”. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 4. 487–525. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Swart, Henriëtte
2012 “Verbal aspect across languages”. Handbook of Tense and Aspect ed. by R. Binnick, 752–780. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar