Article published in:
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
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.11.13hin
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bentzen, Kristine
2010 “Exploring embedded main clause phenomena: The irrelevance of factivity and some challenges from V2 languages.” Theoretical Linguistics 36: 163–172. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hinzen, Wolfram
2006 Mind Design and Minimal Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
1998 “Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites?” In Events and Grammar, Susan Rothstein (ed.), 163–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

de Villiers, Jill
2021. With Language in Mind. Language Learning and Development 17:2 ► pp. 71 ff. Crossref logo
Wiślicki, Jan
2018. Quotation as a challenge for feature-driven phases: An argument for Zwart’s merge. The Linguistic Review 0:0 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 july 2022. 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.