Cover not available
Part of
Minimalism and Beyond: Radicalizing the interfaces
Edited by Peter Kosta, Steven L. Franks, Teodora Radeva-Bork and Lilia Schürcks
[Language Faculty and Beyond 11] 2014
► pp. 315–349

Intensionality, grammar, and the sententialist hypothesis

Intensionality, the apparent failure of a normal referential interpretation of nominals in embedded positions, is a phenomenon that is pervasive in human language. It has been a foundational problem for semantics, defining a significant part of its agenda. Here we address the explanatory question of why it exists. Distinguishing lexical aspects of meaning from those that depend on grammatical patterning, we argue that intensionality is mainly grammatical in nature and origin: intensionality is an architectural consequence of the design of human grammar, although, in language use, lexical and pragmatic factors also play a role in the genesis of intuitions of non-substitutability salva veritate. Over the course of this paper, we offer a sequence of ten empirical arguments for this conclusion. A particular account of recursive structure-building in grammar is also offered, which predicts intensionality effects from constraints that govern how nominals of different grammatical types are embedded as arguments in larger units. Crucially, our account requires no appeal to a traditionally postulated semantic ontology of ‘senses’ or ‘thoughts’ as entities ‘denoted’ by embedded clauses, which, we argue, are explanatorily inert. It also covers intensionality characteristics in apparently non-sentential complements of verbs, which we further argue, against the claims of the recent ‘Sententialist Hypothesis’, not to be sentential complements in disguise.
Published online: 24 September 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.11.13hin
References (58)
References
Abney, Steven. 1987. “The English Noun Phrase and its Sentential Aspect.” Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Arsenijevic, Boban and Hinzen, Wolfram. 2012. “On the absence of X-within-X recursion in human grammar.” Linguistic Inquiry 43(3): 423–440. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentzen, Kristine. 2010. “Exploring embedded main clause phenomena: The irrelevance of factivity and some challenges from V2 languages.” Theoretical Linguistics 36: 163–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2010. Defeating Lexicocentrism. Manuscript, University Autonoma di Barcelona.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. and Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2000. “Mixed extended projections.” In The Nature and Function of Syntactic Categories, Robert D. Borsley (ed.), 101–131. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowers, John. 2011. Arguments as Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brandom, Robert. 1994. Making it Explicit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. “A unified analysis of the English Bare plural.” Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 413–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. 1947. Meaning and Necessity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “Approaching UG from below.” In Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View From Syntax-Semantics, Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2008. “On phases.” In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
De Villiers, Jill. 2007. “The interface of language and theory of mind.” Lingua 117(11): 1858–1878. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel, Larson, Richard and Ludlow, Peter. 1996. “Intensional transitive verbs and concealed complement clauses.” Rivista di Linguistica 8: 29–46.Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert and Higginbotham, James. 1981. “Opacity in NP.” Linguistic Analysis 7: 395–422.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai and Heim, Irene. 2009. Intensional Semantics. Manuscript, MIT and UMass.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. and Lepore, Ernest. 2002. The Compositionality Papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. 1970. “Three reasons for not deriving “kill” from “cause to die”.” Linguistic Inquiry 1: 429–438.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1892. “On sense and reference.” transl. by P. T. Geach. In Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, P.T. Geach and M. Black (eds), 56–78.Oxford: Blackwell (1966).Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 2010. Main Clauses as Arguments. Manuscript, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane and Ürögdi, Barbara. 2010. “Referential CPs and DPs: An operator movement account.” Theoretical Linguistics 36: 111–152.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2011. “Lexical decomposition in modern syntactic theory.” In The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality, Markus Werning, Wolfram Hinzen and Edouard Machery (eds), 328–350. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harves, Stephanie. 2008. “Intensional transitives and Silent HAVE: Distinguishing between Want and Need.” Proceedings of WCCFL 27, 211–219.
Harves, Stephanie and Richard S. Kayne. 2012. “Having need and needing have.” Linguistic Inquiry 43: 120–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene and Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko. 1969. “Semantics for propositional attitudes.” In Philosophical Logic, J.W. Davis, David J. Hockney and W.K. Wilson (eds), 21–45. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinzen, Wolfram. 2006. Mind Design and Minimal Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. An Essay on Names and Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Syntax in the Atom.” In The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality, Markus Werning, Wolfram Hinzen and Edouard Machery (eds), 351–370. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2011. “Antisymmetry and the lexicon.” In The Biolinguistic Enterprise, Cedric Boeckx and Anna-Maria di Sciullo (eds), 329–353. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1993. Nominalizations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin and Witman, John. 2011. “Introduction: Nominalizations in syntactic theory.” Lingua 7: 1160–1163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. “Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites?” In Events and Grammar, Susan Rothstein (ed.), 163–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitival Constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1998. “Events and modification in nominals.” In Semantics and Linguistic Theory VIII (SALT8), Devon Stolovitch and Aaron Lawson (eds), 145–168. Ithaka, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
. 2002. “The grammar of intensionality.” In Logical Form and Language, Gerhard Preyer and Georg Peter (eds), 228–262. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Clauses, propositions and phases.” In The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty, Anna-Maria Di Sciullo and Cedric Boeckx (eds), 366–391. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leu, Tom. 2008. “The Internal Syntax of Determiners.” Ph.D. dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. “Reference and proper names.” Linguistic Inquiry 25 (4): 609–665.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Towards a unified grammar of reference.” Zeitschrift für Sprach­wissenschaft 24: 5–44.Google Scholar
. 2008. “Reference to individuals, person, and the variety of mapping parameters.” In Essays on Nominal Determination: From Morphology to Discourse Management, Henrik H. Müller and Alex Klinge (eds), 189–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James. 1974. “On identifying the remains of deceased clauses.” Language Research 9: 73–85.Google Scholar
Moltmann, Frederike. 1997. “Intensional verbs and quantifiers.” Natural Language Semantics 5: 1–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montague, Richard. 1974. Formal Philosophy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 2008. “Negation, intensionality, and aspect: Interaction with NP semantics.” In Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect, Susan Rothstein (ed.), 291–320. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pietroski, Paul. 2005. Events and Semantic Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reichard, Ulrich. 2012. “Making events redundant: Adnominal modification and phases.” In Philosophical and Formal Approaches to Linguistic Analysis, Piotr Stalmaszczyk (ed.), 429–475. Frankfurt a. M.: Ontos.Google Scholar
Richards, Marc D. 2011. “Deriving the edge: What’s in a phase?” Syntax 14 (1): 74–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1973. “Slifting.” In The formal analysis of natural languages, Maurice Gross, Morris Halle and Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger (eds), 133–169. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Saka, Paul. 2011. Belief Reports. Delivered at SPE 4, University of Bochum, 26 September–1 October 2011.Google Scholar
Saul, Jennifer. 1999. “Substitution, simple sentences, and sex scandals.” Analysis 59(2): 106–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle. 2011. “Extraposition and antisymmetry.” In Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2010, Jereoen van Craenenbroeck and Johan Rooryck (eds), 203–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle and Hinzen, Wolfram. 2011. “Moving towards the edge.” Linguistic Analysis 37(3–4): 405–458.Google Scholar
Szabo, Zoltan G. 2001. “Adjectives in context.” In Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse, Istvan Kenesei and Robert M. Harnish (eds), 119–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susanne. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Thomas E. 1993. “On the proper treatment of opacity in certain verbs.” Natural Language Semantics 1: 149–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (15)

Cited by 15 other publications

Corr, Alice
2022. Interjections and particles. In The Grammar of the Utterance, ► pp. 99 ff. DOI logo
Corr, Alice
2022. Conclusions. In The Grammar of the Utterance, ► pp. 299 ff. DOI logo
Corr, Alice
2022. Vocatives. In The Grammar of the Utterance, ► pp. 51 ff. DOI logo
Corr, Alice
2022. Utterances without commitment. In The Grammar of the Utterance, ► pp. 203 ff. DOI logo
Corr, Alice
2022. A grammar for the utterance. In The Grammar of the Utterance, ► pp. 15 ff. DOI logo
Corr, Alice
2022. Doing things with utterance grammar. In The Grammar of the Utterance, ► pp. 135 ff. DOI logo
Corr, Alice
2022. The Grammar of the Utterance, DOI logo
Corr, Alice
2022. The grammar of dialogue. In The Grammar of the Utterance, ► pp. 251 ff. DOI logo
Corr, Alice
2022. Introduction. In The Grammar of the Utterance, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Corr, Alice
2022. The expression of affect. In The Grammar of the Utterance, ► pp. 157 ff. DOI logo
de Villiers, Jill
2021. With Language in Mind. Language Learning and Development 17:2 ► pp. 71 ff. DOI logo
Wiślicki, Jan
2018. Quotation as a challenge for feature-driven phases: An argument for Zwart’s merge. The Linguistic Review DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. General Preface. In The Grammar of the Utterance, ► pp. vii ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Copyright Page. In The Grammar of the Utterance, ► pp. iv ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. List of Abbreviations. In The Grammar of the Utterance, ► pp. xi ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.