The anti-rogativity of non-veridical preferential predicates. Uegaki, W. & Sudo, Y. 2017. Amsterdam Colloquium 2017![The anti-rogativity of non-veridical preferential predicates [pdf]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/pdf.svg "pdf")
Paper abstract bibtex Clause-embedding predicates come in three major varieties: (i) responsive predicates (e.g. know) are compatible with both declarative and interrogative complements, (ii) rogative predicates (e.g. wonder ) are only compatible with interrogative complements, and (iii) anti-rogative predicates (e.g. hope) are only compatible with declarative complements. It has recently been suggested that these selectional properties are at least partly semantic in nature. In particular, it is proposed that the anti-rogativity of neg-raising predicates like believe comes from the triviality in meaning that would arise with interrogative complements. This paper puts forward a similar analysis for non-veridical preferential predicates such as hope. In so doing we also aim at explaining the fact that their veridical counterparts such as be happy are responsive.
@unpublished{UegakiSudo:17,
abstract = {Clause-embedding predicates come in three major varieties: (i) responsive predicates (e.g. know) are compatible with both declarative and interrogative complements, (ii) rogative predicates (e.g. wonder ) are only compatible with interrogative complements, and (iii) anti-rogative predicates (e.g. hope) are only compatible with declarative complements. It has recently been suggested that these selectional properties are at least partly semantic in nature. In particular, it is proposed that the anti-rogativity of neg-raising predicates like believe comes from the triviality in meaning that would arise with interrogative complements. This paper puts forward a similar analysis for non-veridical preferential predicates such as hope. In so doing we also aim at explaining the fact that their veridical counterparts such as be happy are responsive.},
author = {Uegaki, Wataru and Yasutada Sudo},
date-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},
date-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},
keywords = {attitude predicates},
note = {Amsterdam Colloquium 2017},
title = {The anti-rogativity of non-veridical preferential predicates},
url = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WNmZDFmM/paper.pdf},
year = {2017},
Bdsk-Url-1 = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WNmZDFmM/paper.pdf}}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"NuLQei7o2iWEEY5Pu","bibbaseid":"uegaki-sudo-theantirogativityofnonveridicalpreferentialpredicates-2017","authorIDs":["5d4f1cf66281deee010000dd"],"author_short":["Uegaki, W.","Sudo, Y."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"unpublished","type":"unpublished","abstract":"Clause-embedding predicates come in three major varieties: (i) responsive predicates (e.g. know) are compatible with both declarative and interrogative complements, (ii) rogative predicates (e.g. wonder ) are only compatible with interrogative complements, and (iii) anti-rogative predicates (e.g. hope) are only compatible with declarative complements. It has recently been suggested that these selectional properties are at least partly semantic in nature. In particular, it is proposed that the anti-rogativity of neg-raising predicates like believe comes from the triviality in meaning that would arise with interrogative complements. This paper puts forward a similar analysis for non-veridical preferential predicates such as hope. In so doing we also aim at explaining the fact that their veridical counterparts such as be happy are responsive.","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Uegaki"],"firstnames":["Wataru"],"suffixes":[]},{"firstnames":["Yasutada"],"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Sudo"],"suffixes":[]}],"date-added":"2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000","date-modified":"2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000","keywords":"attitude predicates","note":"Amsterdam Colloquium 2017","title":"The anti-rogativity of non-veridical preferential predicates","url":"https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WNmZDFmM/paper.pdf","year":"2017","bdsk-url-1":"https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WNmZDFmM/paper.pdf","bibtex":"@unpublished{UegakiSudo:17,\n\tabstract = {Clause-embedding predicates come in three major varieties: (i) responsive predicates (e.g. know) are compatible with both declarative and interrogative complements, (ii) rogative predicates (e.g. wonder ) are only compatible with interrogative complements, and (iii) anti-rogative predicates (e.g. hope) are only compatible with declarative complements. It has recently been suggested that these selectional properties are at least partly semantic in nature. In particular, it is proposed that the anti-rogativity of neg-raising predicates like believe comes from the triviality in meaning that would arise with interrogative complements. This paper puts forward a similar analysis for non-veridical preferential predicates such as hope. In so doing we also aim at explaining the fact that their veridical counterparts such as be happy are responsive.},\n\tauthor = {Uegaki, Wataru and Yasutada Sudo},\n\tdate-added = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tdate-modified = {2021-08-17 00:00:00 +0000},\n\tkeywords = {attitude predicates},\n\tnote = {Amsterdam Colloquium 2017},\n\ttitle = {The anti-rogativity of non-veridical preferential predicates},\n\turl = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WNmZDFmM/paper.pdf},\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WNmZDFmM/paper.pdf}}\n\n","author_short":["Uegaki, W.","Sudo, Y."],"key":"UegakiSudo:17","id":"UegakiSudo:17","bibbaseid":"uegaki-sudo-theantirogativityofnonveridicalpreferentialpredicates-2017","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WNmZDFmM/paper.pdf"},"keyword":["attitude predicates"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}},"downloads":0},"bibtype":"unpublished","biburl":"https://projects.illc.uva.nl/inquisitivesemantics/assets/files/papers.bib","creationDate":"2019-08-10T19:37:26.819Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["attitude predicates"],"search_terms":["anti","rogativity","non","veridical","preferential","predicates","uegaki","sudo"],"title":"The anti-rogativity of non-veridical preferential predicates","year":2017,"dataSources":["c4Zcgi73xhqdd6WQq","x2Aox4ZP7RsyuDjWX","LaLDs2mrYhQpgH6Lk"]}