Cover not available

Article published In: Linguistics in the Netherlands 2016
Edited by Jenny Audring and Sander Lestrade
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 33] 2016
► pp. 14–27

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF

Expressing generic and transitory opinions in Greek

A semantic analysis of the verbs theoro and vrisko

 | Utrecht University
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 21 December 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.33.02bim
Abstract
This paper investigates the semantics of the Greek subjective attitude verbs vrisko (‘find’) and theoro (‘consider’). I present data from Greek where both verbs embed small clauses including evaluative adjectives (‘tasty’, ‘attractive’) and I develop a tentative analysis for each verb following Sæbø, K. J. 2009. “Judgment ascriptions”. Linguistics and Philosophy 32: 4. 327–352. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar account of find and Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995. “Individual-level predicates as inherent generics”. The Generic Book ed. by G.N. Carlson and F.J. Pelletier, 176–223. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar analysis for generic predicates. I propose that: a) vrisko is a stage-level subjective verb expressing transitory opinions about objects of evaluation as viewed within a particular experience situation; b) theoro is an individual-level subjective verb expressing generic opinions about objects of evaluation as realised across various experience situations. This approach explains the observed contrasts between the two verbs. Moreover, it shows that the individual- and stage- level distinction is manifested in attitude verbs and that language employs distinct verbs depending on how an object of evaluation is viewed by the relevant judge.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background on subjective expressions
  • 3.Hypothesis
    • 3.1Terminology
  • 4. Theoro as an inherent generic
    • 4.1 Theoro, vrisko and ILP-properties
    • 4.2 Theoro in connection with find -semantics
    • 4.3Semantics of vrisko
    • 4.4Semantics of theoro
      • 4.4.1Restriction
      • 4.4.2Scope
    • 4.5 Theoro and vrisko in Aorist
  • 5.Conclusions and further discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (17)
References
Bouchard, David-Étienne. 2012. Long-Distance Degree Quantification and the Grammar of Subjectivity. Ph.-D. thesis, McGill University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bylinina, Lisa. 2014. The grammar of standards: Judge-dependence, purpose-relativity, and comparison classes in degree constructions. (= LOT, 347) Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995. “Individual-level predicates as inherent generics”. The Generic Book ed. by G.N. Carlson and F.J. Pelletier, 176–223. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. 1998. “Reference to kinds across languages”. Natural Language Semantics 6: 4. 339–405. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2002. “Licensing and sensitivity in polarity items: From downward entailment to nonveridicality” (= CLS 38-2) ed. by M. Andronis, E. Debenport, A. Pycha & K. Yoshimura, 29–53. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A. 2009. “The dependency of the subjunctive revisited: Temporal semantics and polarity”. Lingua 1191: 12. 1883–1908. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher. 2012. “Two kinds of subjectivity”. Subjective Meaning ed. by C. Meier and J. Huitink. To appear.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. “Individual-level predicates”. The Generic Book ed. by G.N. Carlson and F.J. Pelletier, 125–175. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred, Pelletier, Francis J., Carlson, Gregory N., Chierchia, Gennaro, Link, Godehard, & ter Meulen, Alice 1995. “Introduction to genericity”. The Generic Book ed. by G.N. Carlson and F.J. Pelletier, 1–124. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lasersohn, P. 2005. “Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste”. Linguistics and Philosophy 28: 6. 643–686. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2009. “Relative truth, speaker commitment, and control of implicit arguments.” Synthese 166: 2. 359–374. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sæbø, K. J. 2009. “Judgment ascriptions”. Linguistics and Philosophy 32: 4. 327–352. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sioupi, Athina. 2014. “Result states, target states, and aspectual perfectivity”. Zwischen Kern Und Peripherie: Untersuchungen Zu Randbereichen in Sprache Und Grammatik 76 ed. by A. Machicao y Priemer, A. Nolda and A. Sioupi, 131–156. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota S. 1991. “The parameter of aspect”. (= Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, 43). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stephenson, T. 2007. “Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste”. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 4. 487–525. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Swart, Henriëtte. 2012. “Verbal aspect across languages”. Handbook of Tense and Aspect ed. by R. Binnick, 752–780. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue