z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Acquaintance content and obviation
Author(s) -
Pranav Anand,
Natasha Korotkova
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
zas papers in linguistics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 1435-9588
DOI - 10.21248/zaspil.60.2018.454
Subject(s) - evidentiality , presupposition , taste , linguistics , epistemology , modal verb , interpretation (philosophy) , subjectivity , content (measure theory) , scope (computer science) , psychology , computer science , cognitive psychology , philosophy , mathematics , verb , mathematical analysis , neuroscience , programming language
This paper is about what Ninan (2014) (following Wollheim 1980) calls the AcquaintanceInference (AI): a firsthand experience requirement imposed by several subjective expressions such asPredicates of Personal Taste (PPTs) (delicious). In general, one is entitled to calling something deliciousonly upon having tried it. This requirement can be lifted, disappearing in scope of elements that we willcall obviators. The paper investigates the patterns of AI obviation for PPTs and similar constructions(e.g., psych predicates and subjective attitudes). We show that the cross-constructional variation in whenacquaintance requirements can be obviated presents challenges for previous accounts of the AI (Pearson2013, Ninan 2014). In place of these, we argue for the existence of two kinds of acquaintance content:(i) that of bare PPTs; and (ii) that of psych predicates, subjective attitudes and overt experiencer PPTs.For (i), we propose that the AI arises from an evidential restriction that is dependent on a parameterof interpretation which obviators update. For (ii), we argue that the AI is a classic presupposition. Wemodel both (i) and (ii) using von Fintel and Gillies’s (2010) framework for directness and thus connecttwo strands of research: that on PPTs and that on epistemic modals. Both phenomena are sensitive toa broad direct-indirect distinction, and analyzing them along similar lines can help shed light on hownatural language conceptualizes evidence in general.Keywords: evidentiality, firsthand experience, knowledge, predicates of personal taste, subjectivity

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here