Plural shifted indexicals are plural: evidence from Amharic Chris

12 Pages·2014·0.09 MB·English

Pluralshiftedindexicalsareplural:evidencefromAmharic
ChrisLaTerza†,RuthKramer‡,MorganRood‡,DustinChacón†,JenJohnson‡
†UniversityofMaryland,‡GeorgetownUniversity
1. Introduction
Thispaperdocumentsandanalyzesthephenomenonoffirst-personalpluralshiftedindexi-
calsinAmharic,exhibitedbelowin(1).
(1) 1tS’tS’u-wotStS-u 1nn-aSänf-all-än al-u
candidate-PL-DEF 1PL-win.IPFV-AUX-1PL say.PF-3PL
‘[Thecandidates]isaidthatWEiwillwin’
Our primary goal is to show that plural shifted indexicals are interpreted as semantically
plural; a thesis that goes against many previous accounts on the interpretation of plural
pronouns that are referentially dependent on an attitude holder nominal. We then offer
modificationstoSchlenker’s(1999,2003,2012)neo-KaplanianproposalsaboutAmharic
shiftedindexicalstoaccountforthesenewfacts.
Thepaperisorganizedasfollows.In§2,wepresentasummaryoftherelevantempirical
data to be discussed. This will include important data that has already been discussed in
theliterature,aswellasnoveldatathatwehavecollectedfromseveralnativespeakersof
Amharic.1In§3,weofferargumentsforthesemanticpluralityofpluralshiftedindexicals,
followedbyouranalysisin§4.2Thepaperisconcludedin§5.
2. Empiricaloverview
Shiftedindexicalsarearelativelyrecentdiscovery,andasurprisingoneatthatgiventhat
Kaplan(1989)famouslyconjecturedthatsuchthingsdonotexist.Heobserved,correctly,
1WethankourAmharicinformantswhoprovideduswiththenewdatapresentedhere:GirmaDemeke,
BirukFikadu,EzanaFisha,MelatFisha,YonHaregot,BekaleSeyum,KeduseTsegaye,andMeriemTikue.
We make use of the following gloss abbreviations throughout: 1-first person, 3-third person, AUX-
auxiliary, COP-copula, DEF-definiteness marker, IMPF-imperfective verb, M-masculine, NEG-negation, .O-
objectmarker,PF-perfectiveverb,PL-plural,.S-subjectmarker,SG-singular.
2Thecontentof§3and§4areinanabridgedform.Foramoredetailedexpositionoftheargumentsand
theformalanalysis,wereferreaderstoLaTerza(2014).
© 2014byChristopherLaTerza,DustinChaco´n,JenJohnson,RuthKramer,andMorganRood
JyotiIyer&LelandKusmer(eds.):NELS44,Vol.1,259–269.
GLSAAmherst.
260 LaTerza,Kramer,Rood,Chacón,&Johnson
that English sentences like (2) are not ambiguous with respect to the the first-personal
indexicalintheembeddedclause,whichcanonlyrefertothespeakeroftheactualspeech
act,notthespeakerofareportedspeechact(i.e.,John).
(2) JohnsaidthatIamahero.
KaplanhypothesizedthatthispropertyofEnglishindexicals,oftencalledrigiddesignation,
isapropertyofindexicalscross-linguistically.Schlenker(1999)introducedAmharicdata
thatfalsifythishypothesis.TheAmharicequivalentof(2),givenbelowas(3),showsthat
theindexicalisambiguousinthewayKaplanthoughtwasimpossible.
(3) John [dZägna nä-ññ] y1-l-all
John hero COP-1SG.S 3SGM.S-say.IMPF-AUX.3SGM.S
‘Johnsaysthat{Iam,heis}ahero’
Schlenkerobservedthatnotonlycantheembeddedindexicalrefertothespeakerofthe
reportedspeechact,butwhensuchreferenceisintendedtheindexicalreceivesanobliga-
tory De Se interpretation. We refer readers to Lewis (1979), Perry (1979), and Schlenker
(2012) especially for detailed discussion of De Se phenomena. For the purposes of this
paper,itsufficestocharacterizeaDeSeattitudeasanattitudeaboutone’sselfwhereitis
impossibletobemistakenaboutwhotheselfis.Certaintypesofattitudereportsinnatural
language,suchasAmharicspeechreportswithshiftedindexicals,obligatorilyreportaDe
Seattitude.Toseethis,considerthetruth(3)withrespecttothetwosituationsbelow;S1
andS2(contextanddatatakenfromAnand(2006),basedonSchlenker(1999),re-glossed
asperourconventions).
(4) S1:Johnsays“Iamahero.”
S2:John,whoisacandidateintheelection,issodrunkhedoesn’trememberwho
heis.HewatchesTVandseesacandidatehefindsterrific,thinkingthisguymust
beahero.ThiscandidatehappenstobeJohnhimself,althoughhedoesn’trealizeit.
John [dZägna nä-ññ] y1-l-all
John hero COP-1SG.S 3SGM.S-say.IMPF-AUX.3SGM.S
‘Johnsaysthat{Iam,heis}ahero.’[TrueforS1,FalseforS2]
InS1,Johnsayssomethingabouthimself,andheknowsforsurethatitishimselfthathe
istalkingabout.InS2,Johntalksaboutathirdpersonhehasinmindthatheknowsunder
somedescription,butlittledoesheknow,hehappenstobetalkingabouthimself.Inother
words,inbothcasesJohntalksabouthimself,butonlyinS1doeshetalkabouthimselfDe
Se.Assuch,(3)canonlybejudgedtruewithrespecttoS1,andisfalsewhenusedtoreport
onS2.
Pluralshiftedindexicalsareplural 261
2.1 Enterplurality
Higginbotham (1981) observed that attitude reports like (5) and (6) can be true in very
differenttypesofsituations.
(5) JohnandMarythinkthattheyaresick.
(6) JohnandMarywanttobesick.
Iwilllabelthetwointerpretationsof(5)and(6)asgroupanddependent readings,which
areparaphrasedbelow.
(7) i. Groupreading:JohnandMaryeachthink/want:“wearesick.”
ii. Dependentreading:JohnandMaryeachthink/want:“Iamsick.”
Beck&Sauerland(2000)observedfurtherthatthepresenceofthedependentreadingis
determinedbywhetherornotthereisapronounintheembeddedclausethatisreferentially
dependentontheattitudeholdernominal.Theyprovideexampleslike(8)toshowthatthe
dependentreadingitnotpossiblewithoutsuchapronoun.
(8) MaxandPetersaidthatBillmarriedAnnandAmy(*respectively).
We provide new data from Amharic that makes the same point: a dependent reading is
not possible without a pronoun in the embedded clause that refers to the speakers of the
reportedspeechact.
(9) Journalist1says:“Obamawillwin.”
Journalist2says:“Romneywillwin.”
gazet’äñña-wotStS-u täwädadari-wotStS-u y-aSänf-allu
journalist-PL-DEF candidate-PL-DEF 3PL.S-win.IMPF-AUX.3PL.S
al-u
say.PF-3PL.S
‘Thejournalistssaidthatthecandidateswillwin.’(Falseinabovesituationunless
thecandidatesarepartofthesamegroup/party.)
Asafinalpreliminaryremark,noticethatthereareisno“crossed”readingof(5)and
(6),asshownbelowinEnglish(10)andinAmharic(11).
(10) JohnandMarywanttobesick.
Cannotmean:JohnwantsonlyMarytobesick,andMarywantsonlyJohntobe
sick.
262 LaTerza,Kramer,Rood,Chacón,&Johnson
(11) Obamasays:“Romneywillwin.”
Romneysays:“Obamawillwin.”
täwädadari-wotStS-u 1nn-aSänf-allän al-u
candidate-PL-DEF 1PL.S-win.IMPF-AUX.1PL.S say.PF-3PL.S
‘Thecandidatessaidwewillwin.’(Falseinabovesituation.)
Insum,Amharicpluralshiftedindexicalspossesthefollowingpropertiesthatneedto
be accounted for in the semantics: (i) they are obligatorily De Se and (ii) they can have
groupanddependentconstruals,butnotacrossedone.Theseissueswillbetakenupagain
in§4,butfirstweturntodiscussionoftheinterpretationofpluralshiftedindexicals.
3. Essentiallypluralshiftedindexicals
In this section we will argue that Amharic plural shifted indexicals are semantically plu-
ral. This may seem like a trivial thesis, but much previous work on plurality in attitude
reports actually treats such pronouns as singular. Below I provide rough truth conditions
forasingularisttreatmentofdependentreadingof(1),assumingthatthedenotationofthe
candidates is Obama and Romney. The shifted indexical is treated as a singular variable
thatisboundbya(covert)universalquantifier.
(12) x:x Obama,Romney [xsaidxwins]
∀ ∈{ }
WeputasidetheDeSepropertiesofthereportforthetimebeing,andso(12)issimplified
to not express anything about De Se content. The reason for this is that the arguments in
thissectionfocusonthesingularnatureofthevariableassociatedwiththeshiftedindexical
in(1),notaboutitsDeSeproperties.InlatersectionswewillreturntotheDeSeproperties
ofthesereportsandshowhowtheycanbeintegratedintothesemanticsgiventheresults
fromthissection.Havingsaidthat,wethinkthatitisimportanttoatleastrecognizethat
theDeSepropertiesofsentenceslike(1)providesomeinitialmotivationforasingularist
account.DeSeattitudesareaboutanattitudeholder’sself,andwetakethistobeafunda-
mentallysingularnotion.IftheshiftedindexicalisthelocusofDeSeinformation,thenit
isplausiblethatthesepronounsshouldtreatedassemanticallysingular.Furthermore,these
reportsallowdependentreadings,whicharecharacterizedasreportingtheattitudesabouta
singularindividual.Thisprovidesfurthersupportforsingularisttruthconditionslike(12).
Despitethesereasons,wewillarguethatthesemanticvalueofthepluralshiftedindex-
icalisalwayspluralwhenantecededbyapluralnounphrase.Theargumentforsemantic
plurality comes from reports where the embedded clauses expresses cumulativity or reci-
procity. These phenomena have been independently argued to require the presence of a
localpluralnounphrase.Inthecasesthatinterestus,onlytheshiftedindexicalcanfitthis
role; and therefore since these constructions are well-formed, then the shifted indexical
mustbeplural.3
3Notethatsingularistaccountsmustprovideanexplanationforthepluralmorphologyonsuchpronouns.
Forthis,mostpreviousanalyseshavereliedonarulelikethefollowingwhichessentiallyremovesthenumber
featurefromthepronounsoastomakeitsemanticallysingular.
Pluralshiftedindexicalsareplural 263
3.1 Reciprocity
It is a standard assumption that reciprocal anaphors require an antecedent nominal that
is both local and semantically plural; see Fiengo & Lasnik (1973) and Chomsky (1981)
among others. Of particular interest to us is the requirement that the local antecedent be
semanticallyplural,asillustratedby(13)4.
(13) a. Thelionandthetigerkilledeachother.
b. *Hekilledeachother.
ConsidernowareciprocalanaphorintheembeddedclauseofanAmharicspeechreport
withashiftedindexical.5
(14) 1ns1sa-wotStS-u 1nn1-ggädd1l-all-än al-u
animal-PL-DEF 1PL-kill.RECIP.IPFV-AUX-1PL say.PFV-3PL
‘Theanimalssaidthatwewillkilleachother.’
Thissentencehasadependentconstrualwherewhateachanimalsaidisalongthelinesof“I
willkillthatotheranimal”.Assumefurtherforthesakeofsimplicitythateachanimalitself
wantstoremainalive.Ifweapplythesingulariststrategyin(12)asthetruthconditionsof
(14),thentheresultwouldbeasfollows.
(15) x:x thelion,thetiger [xsaidthatxwillkilleachother]
∀ ∈{ }
Thesetruthconditionsareunsatisfactoryforthedependentmeaningof(14).Thereciprocal
is anteceded by a singular value,the value assigned to the variable x. As such, we would
expectthesameinfelicityhereasweseein(13a).Sincethereisnosuchinfelicity,wecan
assumethatthepluralshiftedindexicalisinfactsemanticallyplural.6
(i) LFFeatureDeletionUnderVariableBinding(Stechow(2003))
Deletethefeaturesofallvariablesthatarebound.
For us, no appeal to such a rule is required, at least for number morphology. We offer the parsimonious
alternativethatthenumbermorphologyisactuallyreflectinggenuinesemanticplurality,asitoftendoeswith
othernounphrases.
4Fiengo&Lasnik(1973)offerargumentsbasedonpluraliatantumnounsthatitisnotenoughforthe
reciprocal’santecedenttobemerelymorphologicallyplural.Thisisevidencedbytheunacceptabilityof(i)
whentalkingaboutasinglepairofscissors.
i. *Thescissorsareconnectedtoeachother.
5InAmharic,reciprocityismarkedbyareciprocalverbform,notananaphorinanargumentposition.
Nonetheless,theremuststillbealocalpluralantecedent.
6Thereexistso-calledscopalanalysesofreciprocals,suchasHeimetal.(1991)thatmakeduewitha
singularvariableintheplaceoftheembeddedpronoun.However,severalcounterargumentshavebeenraised
againstsuchanalyses;suchasWilliams(1991),Dalrympleetal.(1994),Asudeh(1998),amongothers.See
LaTerza(2014)forfurtherdiscussion.
264 LaTerza,Kramer,Rood,Chacón,&Johnson
3.2 Cumulativity
Cumulative interpretations of plural sentences were first observed in the semantics litera-
turebyScha(1984),andarecharacterizedbyhavingpartsofonepluralityrelatedtoparts
ofanotherbutnotexhaustively.Considerthefollowingsentencewhichhasaclearcumula-
tiveinterpretation.7
(16) ObamaandRomneydancedwithMichelleandAnn.
This sentence can be true if each candidate danced with his own wife and no one else;
ObamaonlydancedwithMichelle,andRomneyonlydancedwithAnn.Thisisthecumu-
lativeinterpretationof(16).Crucialforourpurposesisthatthemeaningof(16)doesnot
requirethateachofObamaandRomneyhavethepropertyofdancingwithbothMichelle
andAnn.
Consider now this sentence embedded in an Amharic speech report with a shifted in-
dexical.
(17) 1tS’tS’u-wotStS-u kä-Michelle-na Ann gar 1nn1-däns-all-än
candidate-PL.DEF with-Michelle-and Ann with 1PL-dance.PF-AUX-1PL
al-u
say.PF-3PL
‘ThecandidatessaidwewilldancewithMichelleandAnn.’
Applyingthesingulariststrategyoutlinedin(12)tothiscasegivestruthconditionsthatare
toostrong;theysaythateachofthecandidateswanttodancewithbothwomen.
(18) x:x Obama,Romney [xsaidthatxwilldancewithMichelleandAnn]
∀ ∈{ }
Whilethisisapossibleinterpretationof(17),itisnottheonlyinterpretation.Thesetruth
conditionsincorrectlypredictafalsejudgmentinacumulativesituation,whereeachcan-
didate said that he wants to dance only with his wife and no one else. If the value of the
shiftedindexicalwerepluralinthiscase,theseproblemswouldnotarisesincelocalplural
valueslicensecumulativeinterpretations.8
7Beck&Sauerland(2000);p.350,usethephrase“cumulativeinterpretation”toreferto“...allcaseswhere
asentencecontainingtwopluralshastruthconditionsweakerthanthoseofadoublydistributiveparaphrase”.
Thisdefinitionwillsufficeformostofthesentencesdiscussedhere,thoughseeSchein(1993)andSternefeld
(1998)forgeneralizednotionsofcumulativeinterpretationsuitableforcaseswithanarbitrarynumberof
pluralnounphrases.
8Again,therehavebeentreatmentsofsimilarcasesthatpositasingularvariable;suchasBeckandSauer-
land(2000).Theymakeuseofanon-lexicaltheoryofcumulativitythathasbeencriticizedbyauthorslike
Schein(1993)andKratzer(2005).SeeLaTerza(2014)forfurtherdiscussionandcounterexamples.
Pluralshiftedindexicalsareplural 265
4. Semanticanalysis
InthissectionweprovideabriefsketchofthemodificationstoexistingtheoriesofDeSe
reportsneededtoaccountforthesefacts.Wewillstartwithanoverviewofsomefundamen-
talideasfromthesemanticsofpluralitywhichareneededforthemodificationstoattitude
verbandindexicalsemanticsthatfollow.
4.1 Plurality
We assume the basic tenets of mereological theories of plurality, as found in Link (1983)
andLandman(2000),forexample.Onecoreidea,foundinalmostanytheoryofplurality,
is that the denotation of predicates is closed under sum formation. Below we provide a
generalprinciplethatencapsulatesthisideaforpredicatesofanyadicity.Iusethestandard
notationalconventionoftreatinguppercasevariablelettersasnumber-neutral,whilelower
casevariablescanonlybeassignedsingular/atomicvalues.
(19) CumulativityPrinciple
IfRisann-aryrelationandboth X ,...,X and Y ,...,Y areinR’sdenotation,
1 n 1 n
⟨ ⟩ ⟨ ⟩
thensois X Y ,...,X Y .
1 1 n n
⟨ % % ⟩
Thisprinciple,amongotherthings,ismeanttoaccountforinferenceslike(20).
JohnkissedMary.
BillkissedSue.
(20)
JohnandBillkissedMaryandSue. ∴
Acentralobservationaboutpluralityinnaturallanguageisthatitcomesindistributive
and collective varieties. For the purposes of this paper, we follow authors such as Link
(1984), Roberts (1987), and Lasersohn (1998) in taking collective predication to be ba-
sic,anddistributiveinterpretationsasderivedbythepresenceofaDistributivityoperator,
informallydefinedbelow.
(21) TheDistributivityOperator
Foranyone-placepredicatePandsumofindividualsX:DPholdsofX iffPholds
ofeachatomicpartxofX.
Toanticipateourproposalsomewhat,weproposethatthedistributive/collectivecontrastis
atworkinattitudereportsandcanbeusedtoaccountforsomeofthepuzzlingproperties
ofpluralDeSereports.
266 LaTerza,Kramer,Rood,Chacón,&Johnson
4.2 Attitudeverbsandpluralpredication
We assume a context-based theory of attitude reports based on the work of Schlenker
(1999) and Schlenker (2003). Formally, a context c is a tuple c ,c,c where c is the
a t w a
⟨ ⟩
author/speaker of c, c is the time of c, and c is the world of c. Schlenker uses contexts
t w
toreplacepossibleworldsintraditionaldenotationsofattitudeverbs;seeHintikka(1969)
andvonFintel&Heim(2012).
(22) believe c=λp.λx. c′ DOX(x,cw)[p(c′)]
∀ ∈
(23) say c=λp.λx. c′ SAY(x,cw)[p(c′)]
! " ∀ ∈
CentraltotheseHintikkanapproachestoattitudeverbmeaningisroleofaccessibility
! "
relations, which are used to determine a set of alternative contexts relative to an attitude
holderanevaluationworld.Eachattitudeverbisassociatedwithacorrespondingaccessi-
bilityrelation.
(24) DOX(x,w)= c:ciscompatiblewithwhatxbelievesinwandxisca}
{
(25) SAY(x,w)= c:ciscompatiblewithwhatxsaysinwandxisca}
{
Our first step is to define a notion of accessibility that is suitable for a plurality of
attitude holders. If we are to define a set of contexts that are accessible to Obama and
Romney,therearereallytwopossiblewaysofdoingso:itiseithertheintersectionorunion
ofeachsingularattitudeholder’srespectsetsgivenbysingularrelationslike(24)and(25).
We believe that the union/sum operation is the appropriate choice given the existence of
dependent readings. The plural SAY-accessibility relation thus has the form of (26); (27)
illustratesthisaccessibilityrelationputtoworkwithourparadecase(1).
(26) SAY(X,w)= c: x[x X &ATOM(x)&ciscompatiblewithwhatxsaysinwand
{ ∃ ≤
xisc ]}
a
(27) SAY(o r,w)= c:[ciscompatiblewithwhatObamasaidandObamaisca]or[c
⊕ {
iscompatiblewithwhatRomneysaidandRomneyisc ]}
a
Wenowturntothemodificationsofattitudeverbmeanings.Westartwiththeobserva-
tionthattheHintikkanapproachtoattitudeverbmeaningcanberecastwithadistributivity
operator;insteadofuniversalquantificationoverasetofaccessiblecontexts,wehavedis-
tributivepredicationoverthesameset.ForanyattitudeverbAVandaccessibilityrelation
R,thiscanbedoneasfollows.
(28) AV c=λp.λX.Dp(R(X,c ))
w
So far this is just a notational variant of a standard idea. However, treating attitude verb
! "
meaningsasatypeofpluralpredicationopensupthepossibilitythatothertypesofplural
predicationmaybeatwork.ThisisourproposalaboutDeSeattitudeverbs;specifically,the
denotationofDeSeattitudeverbslackadistributivityoperator,andcollectivepredication
ofcontextsisthuspossible.
Pluralshiftedindexicalsareplural 267
(29) AV c=λp.λX.p(R(X,c ))
DeSe w
What does it mean to have collective predication of contexts? For one, it means that a
! "
predicate may be collectively satisfied by a sum of contexts in a way that no singular
contextcando.Forexample,ifthepredicateisλC.[theydestroyeachotherinC],itmay
be satisfied by the totality of Obama and Romney’s desire contexts taken together, even
though that same predicate does not hold of any single accessible context that is a part
ofC. Likewise,λC.[they dance with Michelle and Ann inC] can describe the collection
of Obama and Romney’s desire alternatives, even though each candidate by himself just
wantstodancewithasinglewoman.
Asthelaststepofourproposal,weturntothesemanticsoftheshiftedindexicalitself.
WefollowSchlenkerintreatingthemeaningof(first-personal)shiftedindexicalasbeing
determinedbytheauthorcoordinateoftheevaluationcontext.
(30) shiftedindexical c=theauthorofc
We propose for plural shifted indexicals that the context parameter is pluralized; it is a
! "
sum of accessible contexts. This in turn means that the coordinates of the contexts are
themselvessums.Forthepluralindexicalthen,itsvalueisapluralityofauthors.
(31) pluralshiftedindexical C=theauthorsofC
Withtheseproposalsinplace,wenowprovideasimplifiedderivationofthetruthconditions
! "
of(1).
(32) ObamaandRomneysaidWEwillwin C
= saidWEwillwin C(o r)
! ⊕ "
= said C(o r)(λC′. WEwillwin C′)
⊕
! "
= said C(o⊕r)(λC′.WIN(Ca′,Cw′))
! " ! "
= [λp.λX.p(SAY(X,Cw))](o⊕r)(λC′.WIN(Ca′,Cw′))
! "
= [λC′.WIN(Ca′,Cw′)](SAY(o⊕r,Cw))
= TrueiffλC′.WIN(Ca′,Cw′)holdsofthesumofObamaandRomney’s
compatibleSAY-contextsinCw.
= TrueiffthesumofObamaandRomney’sSAY-contextsaresuchthatthe
authorsofthosecontexts(cumulatively)winintheworldsofthosecontexts.
Thelastlineofthederivationrepresentsthetruthconditionsof(1)inprose.Wenowturn
tohowthesetruthconditionsaresatisfiedindependentandgroupsituations,andhowthey
arenotsatisfiedincrossedsituations.
We propose the novel hypothesis that both the dependent and group readings can be
satisfied with the same truth conditions; there is no ambiguity, but underspecified truth
conditions.ThisispossiblebytheCumulativityPrinciple(19)appliedtotheinterpretation
of WIN(Ca,Cw), which says that the authors of C cumulatively win in the worlds of C.
268 LaTerza,Kramer,Rood,Chacón,&Johnson
This can be done for example if Obama wins on Obama worlds, and Romney wins on
Romney worlds. This predicate can also be satisfied if both Obama and Romney win on
Obamaworlds,andObamaandRomneywinonRomneyworlds.Thetruthconditionsfor
(1)aresatisfiedif,attheminimum,theauthorswinintheirrespectiveworlds;thereisno
restrictionthattheyaretheonlywinners.
ThehypotheticalcrossedreadingisruledoutbyappealingnotjusttoObamaandRom-
ney,buttoObamaandRomneyasauthors.Thisqualificationisindependentlyrequiredby
DeSepropertiesofthereport.Inthecrossedreading,itistruethatObamaandRomneycu-
mulativelywininObamaandRomney’sworlds,butitisnottruethatObamaandRomney
asauthorsareonesthatarewinning(inthissituation,theauthorsarelosing).Forreasons
ofspacediscussionofthisiscutshort,andagainwereferthereadertoLaTerza(2014)for
furtherdetails,buttheessenceoftheclaimisthatwhatmakesthesereportobligatorilyDe
Seisalsoresponsibleforthelackofcrossedreadings.
5. Conclusion
In this paper we have introduced plural shifted indexicals in Amharic. We have argued
that these items should be interpreted as semantically plural, contrary to many previous
studiesonpluralityinattitudereports.AnanalysiswasdevelopedthatmodifiedSchlenker’s
contextbasedsystembyallowingDeSeattitudeverbstorepresentcollectivepredication
ofcontexts.Withthiscentralproposaltogetherwithsomepluralrevisionsofaccessibility
relationsandthedenotationofshiftedindexicals,wewereabletoprovideasketchofthe
truth-conditional derivations of the range of interpretations available to Amharic attitude
reportswithshiftedindexicals.
References
Anand,Pranav.2006. Dedese. Doctoraldissertation,MIT.
Asudeh,Ash.1998. Anaphoraandargumentstructure:Topicsinthesyntaxandsemantics
ofreflexivesandreciprocals. Master’sthesis,UniversityofEdinburgh.
Beck, Sigrid, & Uli Sauerland. 2000. Cumulation is needed: a reply to winter (2000).
NaturalLanguageSemantics8:349–371.
Chomsky,Noam.1981. LecturesonGovernmentandBinding. MoutondeGruyter.
Dalrymple,Mary,SamMchombo,&StanleyPeters.1994. Semanticsimilaritiesandsyn-
tacticcontrastsbetweenchichewˆaandenglishreciprocals. LinguisticInquiry25:145–
163.
Fiengo,Robert,&HowardLasnik.1973. Thelogicalstructureofreciprocalsentencesin
english. FoundationsofLanguage9:447–468.
vonFintel,Kei,&IreneHeim.2012. Lecturenotesonintensionalsemantics. Spring2011
edition,MIT.
Heim,Irene,HowardLasnik,&RobertMay.1991. Reciprocityandplurality. Linguistic
Inquiry22:63–101.