Cover not available

Article published In: Le verbe vouloir dans tous ses états
Edited by Anouch Bourmayan
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 48:1] 2025
► pp. 8–47

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

Subject obviation and self-locating knowledge

 | Georg-August-Universität Göttingen
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

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

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with University of Göttingen.

Published online: 3 October 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00121.gon
Summary
Subject obviation is a restriction on having coreferential subjects in sentences like #Je veux que je parte ‘I want that I leave’. In this paper, I defend the view that sentences with subject obviation are deviant because they violate the principle of non-triviality. This principle disallows the ascription of propositions whose content does not exclude any possibility from a belief state. I argue that embedded propositions in obviative sentences involve self-locating information (information about who and where we are in the world), which leads to a violation of non-triviality in certain attitude ascriptions. I show that sentences with subject obviation are deviant for the same reason as #I believe I am sane when the speaker has no doubts about her sanity.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Ruwet’s explanation
  • 2.Non-triviality, belief ascription, and autonomy of pragmatics
  • 3.Phenomenal information and self-locating knowledge
  • 4.Obviative, non-obviative, and ameliorated sentences
  • 5.Non-triviality, uncertainty, and introspection
  • 6.Avoiding a wild-goose chase
    • Factives
    • Cross-linguistic variation
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (46)
References
Anand P. & Hacquard V. (2013). Epistemics and attitudes. Semantics and Pragmatics, 61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anscombe G. E. M. (1957). Intention. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bouchard D. (1983). The avoid pronoun principle and the elsewhere principle. In Proceedings of NELS 131, p. 29–36, Amherst: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cappelen H. & Dever J. (2013). The Inessential Indexical: On the Philosophical Insignificance of Perspective and the First Person. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Castañeda H.-N. (1966). ’he’: A study in the logic of self-consciousness. Ratio, 81, 130–157.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chierchia G. (1989). Anaphor and attitudes de se. In V. B. Bartsch & van Emde Boas, Eds., Semantics and Contextual Expressions, p. 1–31. Kluwer/Reidel. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Costantini F. (2006). Subjunctive obviation: an interface perspective. PhD thesis, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice.
(2016). Subject obviation as a semantic failure: a preliminary account. Annali di Ca’ Foscari. Serie occidentale, 501, 109–131.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2023). On some epistemic access effects. In J. Goncharov & H. Zeijlstra, Eds., Agency and Intentions in Language, volume 61 of Brill Research Perspectives in Linguistics. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Farkas D. F. (1988). On obligatory control. Linguistics and Philosophy, 11(1), 27–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1992). On obviation. In I. A. Sag & A. Szabolcsi, Eds., Lexical Matters, chapter 4, p. 85–110. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith P. (2020). Metazoa: Animal Minds and the Birth of Consciousness. Harper Collins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goncharov J. (forthcoming). Decisive modality and intentionality effect. Canadian Journal of Linguistics.
Heim I. (1992). Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics, 9(3), 183–221. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Higginbotham J. (2003). Remembering, imagining, and the first person. In A. Barber, Ed., Epistemology of Language, p. 496–533. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackson F. (1982). Epiphenomenal qualia. Philosophical Quarterly, 321, 127–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaufmann M. (2019). Who controls who (or what). Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 291, 636–664. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kempchinsky P. (1986). Romance subjunctive clauses and logical form. PhD thesis, UCLA.
(2009). What can the subjunctive disjoint reference effect tell us about the subjunctive? Lingua, 119(12), 1788–1810. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1979). Attitudes de dicto and de se. The Philosophical Review, 88(4), 513–543. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morgan J. (1970). On the criterion of identity for noun phrase deletion. Chicago Linguistic Society, 61, 380–389.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ninan D. (2010). De se attitudes: Ascription and communication. Philosophy Compass, 5(7), 551–567. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oikonomou D. (2016). Covert modals in root contexts. PhD thesis, MIT.
Perry J. (1977). Frege on demonstratives. The Philosophical Review, 86(4), 474–497. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1979). The problem of the essential indexical. Noûs, 13(1), 3–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Knowledge, Possibility and Consciousness. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Picallo C. (1985). Opaque domains. PhD thesis, CUNY.
Roberts C. & Simons M. (2024). Preconditions and projection: Explaining non-anaphoric presupposition. Linguistics and Philosophy, 47(4), 703–748. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruwet N. (1984). Je veux partir/* je veux que je parte. à propos de la distribution des complétives à temps fini et des compléments à l’infinitif en français. Cahiers de grammaire, 71, 74–138.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1991). Je veux partir/Je veux que je parte: On the Distribution of Finite Complements and Infinitival Complements in French, In Syntax and Human Experience, p. 1–55. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schlenker P. (2005). The lazy Frenchman’s approach to the subjunctive. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory, p. 269–309. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simons M., Beaver D., Roberts C. & Tonhauser J. (2016). The best question: Explaining the projection behavior of factives. Discourse Processes, 54(3), 187–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stalnaker R. C. (1968). A theory of conditionals. In N. Rescher, Ed., Studies in Logical Theory (American Philosophical Quarterly Monographs 2), p. 98–112. Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1978). Assertion. Syntax and Semantics, 91, 315–332. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1984). Inquiry. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1988). Belief attribution and context. In R. Grimm & D. Merrill, Eds., Contents of Thought, p. 140–156. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Context and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Our Knowledge of the Internal World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stegovec A. (2019). Perspectival control and obviation in directive clauses. Natural Language Semantics, 27(1), 47–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szabolcsi A. (2010). Infinitives vs. subjunctives: What do we learn from obviation and from exemptions from obviation? URL [URL] ms. New York University.
(2021). Obviation in Hungarian: what is its scope, and is it due to competition? Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 6(1), 1–28.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tonhauser J., Beaver D., Roberts C. & Simons M. (2013). Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language, 89(1), 66–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Villalta E. (2008). Mood and gradability: an investigation of the subjunctive mood in spanish. Linguistics and Philosophy, 311, 467–522. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
von Fintel K. (1999). NPI licensing, Strawson entailment, and context dependency. Journal of Semantics, 16(2), 97–148. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue