Cover not available

Article published In: Le verbe vouloir dans tous ses états
Edited by Anouch Bourmayan
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 48:1] 2025
► pp. 48–75

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

Vouloir in the landscape of volition and desire

 | Institut Jean Nicod CNRS/ENS/EHESS/PSL
 | Institut Jean Nicod CNRS/ENS/EHESS/PSL
Published online: 3 October 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.00122.mar
Summary
The paper explores a variety of bouletic attitudes in French, which it studies in the light of the distinction between mere-desire and action-oriented volition. It shows that avoir envie is not rational and not action-oriented, while espérer and vouloir are rational with only vouloir being action-oriented. Vouloir in the conditional fills the fourth possibility, featuring irrationality and action-orientedness. Several semantic tests substantiate these notions. The analysis distinguishes between experiential, rational and actionable modal bases for bouletic attitudes and derives the facts observed from properties of the modal bases that are lexically triggered and their entailments. Along the way, the paper contributes some new pieces to the discussion surrounding the effects of the COND (Conditionnel) on voilitional and epistemics.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Data
    • 1.1Desire reports and ascription
    • 1.2The semantic profile of bouletic attitudes in French
      • 1.2.1Rationality
      • 1.2.2Temporal orientation
      • 1.2.3Action
  • 2.Previous analyses
    • 2.1The beginnings: Hintikka and Heim
    • 2.2Mood selection and the layers of bouletics
    • 2.3Actionability
  • 3.Analysis
    • 3.1Modal backgrounds
    • 3.2Avoir envie and espérer
    • 3.3Vouloir
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (71)
References
Anand P. & Hacquard V. (2013). Epistemics and attitudes. Semantics and Pragmatics, 6(8), 1–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anscombe G. (1957). Intention. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anscombre J.-C. & Ducrot O. (1983). L’argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles: Editions Mardaga.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baranzini L. & Mari A. (2019). From epistemic modality to concessivity: Alternatives and pragmatic reasoning per absurdum. Journal of Pragmatics, 1421, 116–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baunaz L. & Puskäs G. (2022). A Cross-linguistic Approach to the Syntax of subjunctive Mood. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Belnap N. (1992). Branching space-time. Synthese, 92(3), 385–434. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blumberg K. & Hawthorne J. (2022). Desire. Philosophers’ Imprint, 22(8), 1–17. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolinger D. (1968). Postposed main phrases: an English rule for the romance subjunctive. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique, 14(1), 3–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bylinina L. (2017). Judge-dependence in degree constructions. Journal of Semantics, 34(2), 291–331.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Celle A. (2007). Analyse unifiée du conditionnel de non prise en charge en français et comparaison avec lâanglais. In Études sémantiques et pragmatiques sur le temps, l’aspect et la modalité, p. 43–61. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Condoravdi C. (2002). Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for the past. In The construction of meaning, p. 59–88. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Condoravdi C. & Lauer S. (2016). Anankastic conditionals are just conditionals. Semantics and Pragmatics, 9(8), 1–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crnič L. (2011). Getting even. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Davis W. A. (1984). The two senses of desire. Philosophical Studies, 45(2), 181–195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elliott P. D. (2020). Elements of clausal embedding. PhD thesis, University College London.
Farkas D. (1988). On obligatory control. Linguistics and Philosophy, 11(1), 27–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1992). On Obviation. In A. Szabolcsi & I. Sag, Eds., Lexical Matters, p. 85–109. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giannakidou A. (1999). Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22(4), 367–421. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giannakidou A. & Mari A. (2013). A two dimensional analysis of the future: modal adverbs and speaker’s bias. Proceedings of the Amsterdam Colloquium, p. 115–122.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Mixed (non)veridicality and mood choice with emotive verbs. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 51), p. 181–195, Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016a). Emotive-factive and the puzzle of the subjunctive. Proceeding of CLS, 511, 181–195.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016b). Epistemic future and epistemic MUST: Nonveridicality, evidence, and partial knowledge. In J. Blaszack, A. Giannakidou, D. Klimek-Jankowska & K. Migdalski, Eds., Mood, Aspect, Modality Revisited: New Answers to Old Questions, p. 75–124, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). A unified analysis of the future as epistemic modality: The view from greek and Italian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 361, 85–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021a). A linguistic framework for knowledge, belief, and veridicality judgment. KNOW: A Journal on the Formation of Knowledge, 5(2), 255–293. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021b). Veridicality in Grammar and Thought: modality, propositional attitudes and negation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giorgi A. & Pianesi F. (1997). Tense and Aspect: From Semantics to Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Godard D. (2012). Indicative and subjunctive mood in complement clauses: from formal semantics to grammar writing. Empirical issues in syntax and semantics, 91, 129–148.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goncharov J. (2021). Dynamic presupposition of want and polarity sensitivity. Semantics and linguistic theory, 301, 779–800. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grano T. (2017). The Logic of Intention Reports. Journal of Semantics, 34(4), 587–632. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hacquard V. (2006). Aspects of modality. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Hare R. M. (1971). Wanting: Some Pitfalls. In Practical Inferences, p. 44–58. London: Macmillan Education UK. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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
Hintikka J. (1969). Semantics for Propositional Attitudes. In Models for Modalities: Selected Essays, p. 87–111. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ippolito M. & Farkas D. (2021). Assessing alternatives: the case of the presumptive future in Italian. Linguistics and Philosophy, p. 1–42.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaufmann S. (2005). Conditional truth and future reference. Journal of Semantics, 22(3), 231–280. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kozlowski D., Lannelongue E., Saudemont F., Benamara F., Mari A., Moriceau V. & A. B. (2020). A three-level classification of French tweets in ecological crises. Information Processing & Management, 57(5), 1–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kratzer A. (1981). The notional category of modality. In H.-J. Eikmeyer & H. Rieser, Eds., Words, Worlds, and Contexts: New Approaches in Word Semantics, p. 38–74. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laca B. (2012). On modal tenses and tensed modals. In In Building a bridge between linguistic communities of the Old and the New World, p. 163–198, Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lasersohn P. (2005). Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 281, 643–686. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson D. (2003). Probabilistic model-theoretic semantics for ’want’. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 131, 222–239. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Locke D. (1982). Beliefs, Desires and Reasons for Action. American Philosophical Quarterly, 19(3), 241–249.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mandelkern M., Schultheis G. & Boylan D. (2017). Agentive Modals. The Philosophical Review, 126(3), 301–343. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mari A. (2010). On the evidential nature of the Italian future. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Modalités et Temps. Bern: Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016a). Actuality entailments: when the modality is in the presupposition. In Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics, p. 191–210. Berlin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016b). Assertability conditions of epistemic (and fictional) attitudes and mood variation. 261, 61–81.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mari A. & Martin F. (2007). Tense, abilities and actuality entailment. In Proceedings of the Amsterdam Colloquium, p. 151–156.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mari A. & Portner P. (2021). Mood variation with belief predicates: Modal comparison and the raisability of questions. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 40(1), Article 132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mari A. & Tahar C. (2020). Negative priorities: evidence from prohibitive and expletive negation. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 24(2), 56–71.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moltmann F. (2003). Propositional attitudes without propositions. Synthese, 1351, 77–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nuyts J. (1992). Subjective vs. objective modality: What is the difference. In M. Fortescue, P. Harder & L. Kristoffersen, Eds., Layered structure and reference in a functional perspective, p. 73–97. Benjamins Amsterdam. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Özyıldız D. (2021). The event structure of attitudes. PhD thesis, UMass.
Phillips Brown M. (2019). Anankastic conditionals are still a mystery. Semantics & Pragmatics, 12(13), 1–17. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Portner P. (1997). The semantics of mood, complementation, and conversational force. Natural language semantics, 5(2), 167–212. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Imperatives and modals. Natural language semantics, (15), 351–383. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Mood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Portner P. & Rubinstein A. (2012). Mood and contextual commitment. Semantics and linguistic theory, 221, 461–487. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Desire, belief, and semantic composition: variation in mood selection with desire predicates. Natural Language Semantics, 28(4), 343–393. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rubinstein A. (2014). On necessity and comparison. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 95(4), 512–554. 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, (7), 75–138.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sæbø K. J. (2001). Necessary conditions in a natural language. In C. Féry & W. Sternefeld, Eds., Audiatur Vox Sapientiae: A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, p. 427–449. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schlenker P. (2005). The lazy frenchman’s approach to the subjunctive: Speculations on reference to worlds and semantic defaults in the analysis of mood. In T. Geerts, I. van Ginneken & H. Jacobs, Eds., Selected Papers from ‘Going Romance’ 2003, p. 269–309. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silk A. (2018). Commitment and states of mind with mood and modality. Natural Language Semantics, 26(2), 125–166. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stalnaker R. (1984). Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.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, 31(4), 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
von Fintel K. & Iatridou S. (2023). Prolegomena to a theory of X-marking. Linguistics and Philosophy, 46(6), 1467–1510. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winterstein G. (2010). La dimension probabiliste des marqueurs de discours: nouvelles perspectives sur l’argumentation dans la langue. PhD thesis, Paris 7.
Wu D. (2025). Corrective markers bing and you in mandarin chinese. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 29, (29).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue