Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-54qdv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T16:58:13.848Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A note on the non-de se interpretation of attitude reports

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Yingying Wang  and
Haihua Pan
Yingying Wang*
Affiliation:
Sun Yat-Sen University
Haihua Pan*
Affiliation:
City University of Hong Kong and Beijing Language and Culture University
*
Wang, Institute of Logic and Cognition & Department of Philosophy Sun Yat-Sen University Xingangxi Rd 135 Guangzhou, 510275, China [wangyy65@mail.sysu.edu.cn]
Pan, Department of Linguistics and Translation City University of Hong Kong Tat Chee Avenue 83 Kowloon, Hong Kong [Haihua.Pan@cityu.edu.hk]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this short report, we show that some elements usually deemed as obligatory DE SE anaphors may be interpreted as NON-DE SE in certain contexts. We argue that this non-de se reading cannot be subsumed under the category of DE RE, and suggest extending Kuno and Kaburaki's Theory of Empathy (Kuno & Kaburaki 1977, Kuno 1987) to interpret these readings as Indirect De Se: namely, that the speaker empathizes with the attitude holder, helping the latter to do self-reference. Applying this idea to other anaphoric expressions like personal pronouns, we obtain a TRICHOTOMY of attitude reports—de se, de re, and indirect de se, contra the traditional de se and de re distinction. Our proposal can also help to account for Anand's (2006) observation that only firstperson attitude reports in the Past Tense may have the non-de se reading.

Keywords

de seindirect de sede reempathyattitude report

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 90 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 746 - 754
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anand, Pranav. 2006. De de se. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Boer, Stephen, and Lycan, William. 1986. Knowing who. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Castañeda, Hector-Neri. 1968. On the logic of attributions of self-knowledge to others. The Journal of Philosophy 65. 439–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1989. Anaphora and attitude de se. Semantics and contextual expressions, ed. by Bartsch, Renate, van Bentham, Johan, and van, Peter Boas, Emde, 1–31. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter, James Huang, C.-T.; and Hermon, Gabrielle (eds.) 2001. Syntax and semantics, vol. 33: Long-distance reflexives. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James, and Luther Liu, C.-S.. 2001. Logophoricity, attitudes, and ziji at the interface. In Cole, et al., 141–95.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2013. Contextualism and minimalism on de se belief ascription. Attitude de se: Linguistics, epistemology, metaphysics, ed. by Feit, Neil and Capone, Alessandro, 69–104. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kaplan, David. 1989. Demonstratives. Themes from Kaplan, ed. by Almog, Joseph, Perry, John, and Wettstein, Howard K., 481–565. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu, and Kaburaki, Etsuko. 1977. Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 625–72.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. Attitudes de dicto and de se. The Philosophical Review 88. 523–43.10.2307/2184843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, Emar. 2009. Proper names and indexicals trigger rigid presuppositions. Journal of Semantics 26. 253–315.10.1093/jos/ffp006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 2013. Reflexive binding: Awareness and empathy from a syntactic point of view. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 23. 157–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oshima, David Y. 2006. Perspectives in reported discourse. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Oshima, David Y. 2007. On empathic and logophoric binding. Research on Language and Computation 5. 19–35.10.1007/s11168-006-9020-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pan, Haihua. 1995. Locality, self-ascription, discourse prominence, and Mandarin reflexives. Austin: University of Texas at Austin dissertation.Google Scholar
Pan, Haihua. 1997. Constraints on reflexivization in Mandarin Chinese. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Pan, Haihua. 2001. Why the blocking effect? In Cole et al., 279–316.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Xue, Ping. 2001. Syntactic and non-syntactic constraints on longdistance binding. In Cole, et al., 317–42.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2011. Indexicality and de se reports. Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 2, ed. by Heusinger, Klaus von, Maienborn, Claudia, and Portner, Paul, 1561–60. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. 1987. Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 445–79.Google Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 1982. Structured propositions. Arbeitspapier 59 des SFB 99, Universität Konstanz. Online: http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/∼astechow/Aufsaetze/Structured%20Prop%201.pdf.Google Scholar
Wang, Yingying, and Pan, Haihua. 2014. Empathy and Chinese long-distance reflexive ziji—Remarks on Giorgi (2006, 2007). Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, to appear.10.1007/s11049-014-9257-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2010. What ‘you’ and ‘I’ mean to each other: Person indexicals, self-ascription, and theory of mind. Language 86. 332–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar