Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Testing factivity in Italian: Experimental evidence for the hypothesis that Italian sapere is ambiguous
Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Romance Studies and Classics.
2019 (English)In: Language sciences (Oxford), ISSN 0388-0001, E-ISSN 1873-5746, Vol. 72, p. 93-103Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

In linguistics and in the philosophy of language it is standardly assumed that know is a factive verb, meaning that a sentence such as X knows that p, when uttered in its positive declarative form, presupposes, in fact entails, the truth of its complement. A problem for this analysis is the fact that the verb know can be used non-factively in contexts where it is evident that the proposition expressed by the subordinate clause is not true. In order to account for non-factive uses of know, two main solutions have been advanced in the literature. Hazlett (2009, 2010, 2012) proposes that know is not semantically factive and a sentence such as X knows that p does not entail, but only pragmatically implies p. On the other hand, Tsohatzidis (2012) argues that know is lexically ambiguous between a factive and a non-factive sense: when know is used in its factive sense, a sentence such as X knows that p entails p, whereas, when know occurs in its non-factive sense, it does not.

As shown in recent works by Colonna Dahlman (2015, 2016, 2017b), the phenomenon at issue―the possibility for a speaker to use know in cases where the proposition expressed by the clause embedded under ‘knows’ is not true―is not unique to English, but occurs, for instance, also in Italian. We carried out a Truth Judgment Task to test the hypothesis that the Italian lexical item ‘sa’ (‘knows’) is ambiguous. Our findings are consistent with the lexical ambiguity hypothesis, and cannot be explained by Hazlett’s pragmatic solution.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2019. Vol. 72, p. 93-103
Keywords [en]
Factivity, Semantic view, Pragmatic view, Truth Judgment Task, Semantic indecision, Sapere ‘know’
National Category
Languages and Literature
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-159509DOI: 10.1016/j.langsci.2018.07.004ISI: 000462111000006OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-159509DiVA, id: diva2:1244332
Available from: 2018-08-31 Created: 2018-08-31 Last updated: 2019-04-29Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Colonna Dahlman, Roberta
By organisation
Department of Romance Studies and Classics
In the same journal
Language sciences (Oxford)
Languages and Literature

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 173 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf