Chapter published in:
Boundaries, Phases and Interfaces: Case studies in honor of Violeta Demonte
Edited by Olga Fernández-Soriano, Elena Castroviejo Miró and Isabel Pérez-Jiménez
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 239] 2017
► pp. 256276


Anand, Pranav
2006De De Se. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
2009The cross-linguistic manifestations of de se expressions. Handout in Arche/CSMN Mini-course & Workshop: De Se Attitudes CSMN , University of Oslo, Oslo: Jun 9, 2010.
Anand, Pranav & Hacquard, Valentine
2013Epistemics and attitudes. Semantics and Pragmatics 6: 1–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro
1989Anaphora and attitudes de se . In Language in context, Renate Bartsch, Johan van Benthem & Peter van Emde Boas (eds), 1–32. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1995The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Kyung-Sook
2007Spatial deictic tense and evidentials in Korean. Natural Language Semantics 15: 187–219. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crnič, Luka
2014Pragmatics of epistemics in attitudes: A reply to Anand & Hacquard (2013). Ms, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai & Gillies, Anthony S.
2011Might made right. In Epistemic modality, Andy Egan & Brian Weatherson (eds), 108–130. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine
2006Aspects of modality. PhD Dissertation, MIT.
Hoe, Semoon 2013On the 1st/2nd person restriction of Korean anaphor caki and its implications. To appear at Proceedings of the 49th Chicago Linguistic Society . Chicago IL: Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago.
Huang, C.-T. James & Liu, C.-S. Luther
2001Logophoricity, attitudes, and ziji at the interface. In Long Distance Reflexives [Syntax and Semantics 33], Peter Cole, C.-T. James Huang & Gabrielle Hermon (eds), 141–195. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, David
1969Quantifying in. Synthese 19: 178–214. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu & Kaburaki, Etsuko
1977Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8(4): 625–672.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan
2015A Two-Tired Theory of Control. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Jungmee
2013Temporal constraints on the meaning of evidentiality. Natural Language Semantics 21: 1–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David
1979Attitudes de dicto and de se . The Philosophical Review 88(4): 513–543. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lim, Dongsik
2010Evidentials and Interrogatives: A Case Study from Korean. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
2012Korean evidential -te-: Inference from direct evidence. In Coyote Papers 20: Working Papers in Linguistics, Jaehoon Choi, E. Alan Hogue, Jeffrey Punske, Deniz Ta, Jessamyn Schertz & Alex Trueman (eds), 64–72. Tucson AZ: University of Arizona.Google Scholar
2014Temporal and inferential interpretation of Korean direct evidential -te-. In Proceedings of the 47th Chicago Linguistic Society, 183–197. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Lim, Dongsik & Hoe, Semoon
To appear. The complement types of attitudes and de se: Focusing on de se center Shift in Korean. In Proceedings of Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics 10 [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics]. Cambridge MA: Department of Linguistics, MIT.
Lim, Dongsik & Lee, Chungmin
2012Perspective shifts of Korean evidentials and the effect of contexts. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 22, Anca Chereches (ed.), 26–42. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Maier, Emar
2009Proper names and indexicals trigger rigid presuppositions. Journal of Semantics 26: 253–315. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nishigauchi, Taisuke
2013Reflexive binding: Awareness and empathy from a syntactic point of view. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 23: 157–206. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oshima, David Y.
2006Perspectives in Reported Discourse. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Pearson, Hazel
2015The interpretation of the logophoric pronoun in Ewe. Natural Language and Semantics 23: 77–128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Percus, Orin & Sauerland, Uli
2003On the LFs of attitude reports. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 7, Matthias Weisgerber (ed.), 228–242. Konstanz: University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Xue, Ping
2001Syntactic and non-syntactic constraints on long-distance binding. In Long-Distance Reflexives [Syntax and Semantics 33], Peter Cole, C.-T. James Huang & Gabrielle Hermon (eds), 317–342. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe
2003A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 29–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sells, Peter
1987Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 445–479.Google Scholar
Sharvit, Yael
2011Covaluation and Unexpected BT Effect. Journal of Semantics 28: 55–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, Tamina
2007Towards a subjective theory of meaning. PhD Dissertation, MIT.
Tenny, L. Carol
2006Evidentiality, experiencers, and the syntax of sentience in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15: 245–288. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Yingying & Pan, Haihua 2014A note on the non-de se interpretation of attitude reports. Language 90-3: 746–754. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Yingying & Haihua Pan
2015Empathy and Chinese long-distance reflexive ziji—Remarks on Giorgi (2006, 2007). Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33(1): 307–322. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yalcin, Seth
2008Modality and Inquiry. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Yanovich, Igor
2013Standard contextualism strikes back. Journal of Semantics 31: 67–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, Jeong-Me
1989Long-distance anaphors in Korean and their crosslinguistic implications. In Proceedings of Chicago Linguistic Society 25: General Session. 479–495. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago.Google Scholar