Intensionality, the apparent failure of a normal referential interpretation of nominals in embedded positions, is a phenomenon that is pervasive in human language. It has been a foundational problem for semantics, defining a significant part of its agenda. Here we address the explanatory question of why it exists. Distinguishing lexical aspects of meaning from those that depend on grammatical patterning, we argue that intensionality is mainly grammatical in nature and origin: intensionality is an architectural consequence of the design of human grammar, although, in language use, lexical and pragmatic factors also play a role in the genesis of intuitions of non-substitutability salva veritate. Over the course of this paper, we offer a sequence of ten empirical arguments for this conclusion. A particular account of recursive structure-building in grammar is also offered, which predicts intensionality effects from constraints that govern how nominals of different grammatical types are embedded as arguments in larger units. Crucially, our account requires no appeal to a traditionally postulated semantic ontology of ‘senses’ or ‘thoughts’ as entities ‘denoted’ by embedded clauses, which, we argue, are explanatorily inert. It also covers intensionality characteristics in apparently non-sentential complements of verbs, which we further argue, against the claims of the recent ‘Sententialist Hypothesis’, not to be sentential complements in disguise.
1987 “The English Noun Phrase and its Sentential Aspect.” Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Arsenijevic, Boban and Hinzen, Wolfram
2012“On the absence of X-within-X recursion in human grammar.”Linguistic Inquiry 43(3): 423–440.
Bentzen, Kristine
2010“Exploring embedded main clause phenomena: The irrelevance of factivity and some challenges from V2 languages.”Theoretical Linguistics 36: 163–172.
Boeckx, Cedric
2010Defeating Lexicocentrism. Manuscript, University Autonoma di Barcelona.
Borsley, Robert D. and Kornfilt, Jaklin
2000“Mixed extended projections.” In The Nature and Function of Syntactic Categories, Robert D. Borsley (ed.), 101–131. New York: Academic Press.
Bowers, John
2011Arguments as Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brandom, Robert
1994Making it Explicit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carlson, Gregory N
1977“A unified analysis of the English Bare plural.”Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 413–456.
Carnap, Rudolf
1947Meaning and Necessity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Comrie, Bernard
1976Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, Noam
1995The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam
2000New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, Noam
2007“Approaching UG from below.” In Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View From Syntax-Semantics, Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, Noam
2008“On phases.” In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
De Villiers, Jill
2007“The interface of language and theory of mind.”Lingua 117(11): 1858–1878.
Den Dikken, Marcel, Larson, Richard and Ludlow, Peter
1996“Intensional transitive verbs and concealed complement clauses.”Rivista di Linguistica 8: 29–46.
Fiengo, Robert and Higginbotham, James
1981“Opacity in NP.”Linguistic Analysis 7: 395–422.
von Fintel, Kai and Heim, Irene
2009Intensional Semantics. Manuscript, MIT and UMass.
Fodor, Jerry A. and Lepore, Ernest
2002The Compositionality Papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fodor, Jerry A
1970“Three reasons for not deriving “kill” from “cause to die”.” Linguistic Inquiry 1: 429–438.
Frege, Gottlob
1892“On sense and reference.” transl. by P. T. Geach. In Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, P.T. Geach and M. Black (eds), 56–78.Oxford: Blackwell (1966).
Grimshaw, Jane
2010Main Clauses as Arguments. Manuscript, Rutgers University.
Haegeman, Liliane and Ürögdi, Barbara
2010“Referential CPs and DPs: An operator movement account.”Theoretical Linguistics 36: 111–152.
Harley, Heidi
2011“Lexical decomposition in modern syntactic theory.” In The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality, Markus Werning, Wolfram Hinzen and Edouard Machery (eds), 328–350. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harves, Stephanie
2008“Intensional transitives and Silent HAVE: Distinguishing between Want and Need.” Proceedings of WCCFL 27, 211–219.
Harves, Stephanie and Richard S. Kayne
2012“Having need and needing have.”Linguistic Inquiry 43: 120–132.
Heim, Irene and Kratzer, Angelika
1998Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hintikka, Jaakko
1969“Semantics for propositional attitudes.” In Philosophical Logic, J.W. Davis, David J. Hockney and W.K. Wilson (eds), 21–45. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Hinzen, Wolfram
2006Mind Design and Minimal Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hinzen, Wolfram
2007An Essay on Names and Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hinzen, Wolfram
2011“Syntax in the Atom.” In The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality, Markus Werning, Wolfram Hinzen and Edouard Machery (eds), 351–370. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kayne, Richard S
2011“Antisymmetry and the lexicon.” In The Biolinguistic Enterprise, Cedric Boeckx and Anna-Maria di Sciullo (eds), 329–353. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria
1993Nominalizations. London: Routledge.
Kornfilt, Jaklin and Witman, John
2011“Introduction: Nominalizations in syntactic theory.”Lingua 7: 1160–1163.
Kratzer, Angelika
1998“Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites?” In Events and Grammar, Susan Rothstein (ed.), 163–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Landau, Idan
2000Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitival Constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Larson, Richard K
1998“Events and modification in nominals.” In Semantics and Linguistic Theory VIII (SALT8), Devon Stolovitch and Aaron Lawson (eds), 145–168. Ithaka, NY: Cornell University.
Larson, Richard K
2002“The grammar of intensionality.” In Logical Form and Language, Gerhard Preyer and Georg Peter (eds), 228–262. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larson, Richard K
2011“Clauses, propositions and phases.” In The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty, Anna-Maria Di Sciullo and Cedric Boeckx (eds), 366–391. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leu, Tom
2008 “The Internal Syntax of Determiners.” Ph.D. dissertation, New York University.
Longobardi, Giuseppe
1994“Reference and proper names.”Linguistic Inquiry 25 (4): 609–665.
Longobardi, Giuseppe
2005“Towards a unified grammar of reference.”Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 24: 5–44.
1974“On identifying the remains of deceased clauses.”Language Research 9: 73–85.
Moltmann, Frederike
1997“Intensional verbs and quantifiers.”Natural Language Semantics 5: 1–52.
Montague, Richard
1974Formal Philosophy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Partee, Barbara H
2008“Negation, intensionality, and aspect: Interaction with NP semantics.” In Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect, Susan Rothstein (ed.), 291–320. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pietroski, Paul
2005Events and Semantic Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reichard, Ulrich
2012“Making events redundant: Adnominal modification and phases.” In Philosophical and Formal Approaches to Linguistic Analysis, Piotr Stalmaszczyk (ed.), 429–475. Frankfurt a. M.: Ontos.
Richards, Marc D
2011“Deriving the edge: What’s in a phase?”Syntax 14 (1): 74–95.
Ross, John Robert
1973“Slifting.” In The formal analysis of natural languages, Maurice Gross, Morris Halle and Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger (eds), 133–169. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Saka, Paul
2011Belief Reports. Delivered at SPE 4, University of Bochum, 26 September–1 October 2011.
Saul, Jennifer
1999“Substitution, simple sentences, and sex scandals.”Analysis 59(2): 106–112.
Sheehan, Michelle
2011“Extraposition and antisymmetry.” In Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2010, Jereoen van Craenenbroeck and Johan Rooryck (eds), 203–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sheehan, Michelle and Hinzen, Wolfram
2011“Moving towards the edge.”Linguistic Analysis 37(3–4): 405–458.
Szabo, Zoltan G
2001“Adjectives in context.” In Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse, Istvan Kenesei and Robert M. Harnish (eds), 119–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wurmbrand, Susanne
2001Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Zimmermann, Thomas E
1993“On the proper treatment of opacity in certain verbs.”Natural Language Semantics 1: 149–179.
Cited by
Cited by 15 other publications
Corr, Alice
2022. Interjections and particles. In The Grammar of the Utterance, ► pp. 99 ff.
Corr, Alice
2022. Conclusions. In The Grammar of the Utterance, ► pp. 299 ff.
Corr, Alice
2022. Vocatives. In The Grammar of the Utterance, ► pp. 51 ff.
Corr, Alice
2022. Utterances without commitment. In The Grammar of the Utterance, ► pp. 203 ff.
Corr, Alice
2022. A grammar for the utterance. In The Grammar of the Utterance, ► pp. 15 ff.
Corr, Alice
2022. Doing things with utterance grammar. In The Grammar of the Utterance, ► pp. 135 ff.
Corr, Alice
2022. The Grammar of the Utterance,
Corr, Alice
2022. The grammar of dialogue. In The Grammar of the Utterance, ► pp. 251 ff.
Corr, Alice
2022. Introduction. In The Grammar of the Utterance, ► pp. 1 ff.
Corr, Alice
2022. The expression of affect. In The Grammar of the Utterance, ► pp. 157 ff.
de Villiers, Jill
2021. With Language in Mind. Language Learning and Development 17:2 ► pp. 71 ff.
Wiślicki, Jan
2018. Quotation as a challenge for feature-driven phases: An argument for Zwart’s merge. The Linguistic Review 0:0
[no author supplied]
2022. General Preface. In The Grammar of the Utterance, ► pp. vii ff.
[no author supplied]
2022. Copyright Page. In The Grammar of the Utterance, ► pp. iv ff.
[no author supplied]
2022. List of Abbreviations. In The Grammar of the Utterance, ► pp. xi ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.