Non-relational Embedding Verbs: Quotes and Reports

  1. José María García Núñez
  2. Aroa Orrequia-Barea
Revista:
Complutense Journal of English Studies

ISSN: 2386-3935

Año de publicación: 2020

Número: 28

Páginas: 175-187

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.5209/CJES.65989 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Complutense Journal of English Studies

Resumen

Algunos verbos del inglés no pueden reemplazar sus complementos por expresiones referenciales salva congruitate y/o veritate. Esto impide que dichos verbos puedan ser analizados de la misma forma que los típicos verbos transitivos. El objetivo de este trabajo es encontrar una explicación de por qué ciertos verbos completivos del inglés son relacionales mientras que otros no lo son. La cuestión es, ¿por qué pueden los verbos no-relacionales reemplazar sus complementos oracionales por oraciones subordinadas en estilo directo, mientras que los relacionales no permiten dichos complementos? Una comparación de los contextos más relevantes en los que aparecen el estilo directo y el estilo indirecto revela un importante grado de coincidencia que requiere (a) un solapamiento en el tratamiento semántico y (b) una interpretación de sus diferencias en base a los requisitos semánticos de cada clase de verbos que no permite expresar una relación, esto es, los no-relacionales. Para nosotros, el factor distintivo es la denotación de un acto de habla, las diferencias entre las dos clases de verbos identificadas en este trabajo se derivan de la referencia a la forma o al contenido de los actos de habla implicados. Para explicar esto, proponemos una revisión del enfoque davidsoniano a la subordinación completiva.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Alrenga, Peter (2005). A Sentential Subject Asymmetry in English and its Implications for Complement Selection. Syntax 8, 3: 175–207.
  • Asher, Nicholas (1993). Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Bach, Kent (1997). Do Belief Reports Report Beliefs? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 78: 215–241.
  • Banfield, Ann (1982). Unspeakable Sentences. Narration and Representation in the Language of Fiction. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  • Barbiers, Sjef (1998). English and Dutch as SOV-Languages and the Distribution of CP-Complements. In Bezooijen, Renée van and René Kager, eds., 13-25.
  • Bezooijen, Renée van and René Kager, eds. (1998). Linguistics in the Netherlands. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Bierwisch, Manfred and Karl Erich Heidolph, eds. (1970) Progress in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton.
  • Brabanter, Philippe de, ed. (2005). Hybrid Quotation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition) (2007). Distributed by Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, on behalf of the BNC Consortium. URL: http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/.
  • Capone, Alessandro, Ferenc Kiefer and Franco Lo Piparo, eds. (2016). Indirect Reports and Pragmatics. Berlin: Springer Verlag
  • Cappelen, Herman and Ernest Lepore (1997a). Varieties of Quotation. Mind 106: 429–450.
  • Cappelen, Herman and Ernest. Lepore (1997b). On an Alleged Connection between Indirect Speech and the Theory of Meaning. Mind and Language 12: 278–296.
  • Caton, Charles, ed. (1963) Philosophy of ordinary language. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
  • Cattel, Ray (1978). On the Source of Interrogative Adverbs. Language 54: 61–77.
  • Cuba, Carlos de (2007). On (non) Factivity, Clausal Complementation and the CP-field. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation. SUNY: New York.
  • Davidson, Donald (1968). On Saying that. Synthese 19, 1/2: 130-146.
  • Davis, Wayne (2016). A Theory of Saying Reports. In Capone, Alessandro, Ferenc Kiefer and Franco Lo Piparo, eds., 291-332.
  • Dresner, Eli (2010). Language and the Measure of Mind. Mind and Language 25, 4: 418–439.
  • Gómez Torrente, Mario (2005). Remarks on Impure Quotation. In Brabanter, Philipe de, ed., 129–151.
  • Grimshaw, Jane (1979). Complement Selection and the Lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 279–326.
  • Grimshaw, Jane (1982). Subcategorisation and Grammatical Relations. In Zaenen, Annie, ed., 35-55.
  • Gross, Maurice, Moris Halle and Macel Schützenberger, eds. (1973). The Formal Analysis of Natural Languages. The Hague: Mouton.
  • Haegeman, Liliane and Barbara Ürögdi (2010). Operator Movement, Referentiality and Intervention. Theoretical Linguistics 36, 2: 111–152.
  • Hand, Michael (1993). Parataxis and Parentheticals. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 495–507.
  • Hegarty, Michael (1992). Adjunct Extraction and Chain Configurations. Dissertation. MIT: Cambridge.
  • Higginbotham, James (1991). Belief and logical form. Mind and Language 6, 4: 344–369.
  • Hooper, Joan (1975). On assertive predicates. In Kimball, John, ed., 91-124.
  • Hooper, Joan and Sandra Thompson (1973). On the Applicability of Root Transformation. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 4: 465-497.
  • Karttunen, Lauri (1971). Some Observation on Factivity. Papers in Linguistics 4: 55–69.
  • Kimball, John, ed. (1975). Syntax and Semantics Volume 4. New York: Academic Press.
  • Kiparsky, Paul and Carol Kiparsky (1970). Fact. In Bierwisch, Manfred and Karl Erich Heidolph, eds., 143–173.
  • Krifka, Manfred (2014). Embedding illocutionary acts. In Roeper, Thomas and Margaret Speas, eds., 59–88.
  • Lahiri, Uptal (2002). Questions and Answers in Embedded Contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Lepore, Ernest and Barry Lower (1989). You can Say that again”. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 14, 1: 338–356.
  • Lepore, Ernest and Kirk Ludwig (2007). Donald Davidson: Truth-theoretic Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Ludwig, Kirk (2014). Propositions and Higher-Order Attitude Attributions. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 43, 5/6, 741-765.
  • Merriam-Webster.com. (2011). https://www.merriam-webster.com.
  • Moltmann, Friekerike (2003). Propositional Attitudes without Propositions. Synthese 135, 1: 77–118.
  • Moltmann, Friederike. (2013). Abstract Objects and the Semantics of Natural Language. Oxford: OUP.
  • Pietroski, Paul (2005). Events and Semantic Architecture. Oxford: OUP.
  • Predelli, Stefano (2003). Scare Quotes and their Relation to other Semantic Issues. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 1–28.
  • Prior, Arthur (1971). Objects of Thought. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Rauch, Gisa, ed. (1983) Essays on Deixis. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
  • Recanati, François (2000). Oratio Obliqua, Oratio Recta: An Essay on Metarepresentation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Reinhart, Tanya (1983). Point of view in language – The use of parentheticals. In Rauch, Gisa, ed., 169–194.
  • Roeper, Thomas and Margaret Speas, eds. (2014). Recursion: Complexity in Cognition. Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Rooryck, Johan (2001). Evidentiality, Part I. Glot International 5, 4: 125–133.
  • Rosefeldt, Tobias (2008). That-Clauses and Non-Nominal Quantification”. Philosophical Studies 137: 301–333.
  • Ross, John (1973). Slifting. In Gross, Maurice, Moris Halle and Macel Schützenberger, eds., 133–172.
  • Rothstein, Susan (2004). Predicates and their Subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Saka, Paul (2005). Quotational Constructions. In Brabanter, Philippe de, ed., 187–212.
  • Schneider, Stefan (2007). Reduced Parenthetical Clauses as Mitigators: A Corpus Study of French, Italian and Spanish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Urmson, James (1963). Parenthetical Verbs. In Caton, Charles, ed., 220–240.
  • Zaenen, Annie (1982). Subjects and other Subjects: Proceedings of the Harvard Conference on the Representation of Grammatical Relations. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
  • Zucchi, Alessandro (1993). The Language of Propositions and Events. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Zwicky, Arnold (1971). In a Manner of Speaking. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 223–233.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet