Exploring the semantics of English desiderative predicates such as hope, wish, and want, this paper argues that two aspects should be considered for the proper semantic analysis of them. One is that desiderative predicates are involved in expressing different types of preferences or desires, depending on the context of use. The context-dependent characteristics can be accounted for not in terms of the semantics of propositional attitudes, a traditional semantic analysis of desideratives in the field of formal semantics, but rather in terms of Kratzer’s (1991) context-dependent approach to modality. The other aspect is that in contrast to doxastic modals, buletic modals might be used even in the situation where the agent has contradictory desires. In order to account for this, this paper proposes an alternative semantic approach to the desideratives, departing from doxastic modality. This is how we can explain their occurrence in such a conflicting situation.

Mean-Young Song. 2016. The Temporal Interpretation in Double Access Sentences in English. Studies in Modern Grammar 90, 69-97. This paper investigates the semantics of double‐access sentences (DAS) in which the present tense is embedded under the matrix past in propositional attitudes. There are two major approaches to their semantics; the de re (Abusch (1997) and Ogihara (1995 and 1996) and the de dicto (Gennari (1999) and Smirnova (2009)) approach. The de re analysis requires an acquaintance relation, but it is not always necessary in some cases. Gennari’s de dicto analysis poses a problem when it deals with a mistaken belief and a situation where the mismatch between the semantic and the pragmatic aspect (more precisely, the speaker’s pragmatic inference) takes place. As a more appropriate semantic analysis of DAS, this paper proposes that the presuppositional semantic approach and the Kratzer-style modal semantics incorporate into the semantics of DAS since it is the characteristic of DAS that not only does DAS involve presupposition, but attitude holder's background knowledge can also provide us with a clue as to whether or not the content of the embedded proposition holds at the utterance time. This may assist in understanding the semantics of DAS.

This paper investigates the semantics of double‐access sentences (DAS) in which the present tense is embedded under the matrix past in propositional attitudes. There are two major approaches to their semantics; the de re (Abusch (1997) and Ogihara (1995 and 1996) and the de dicto (Gennari (1999) and Smirnova (2009)) approach. The de re analysis requires an acquaintance relation, but it is not always necessary in some cases. Gennari’s de dicto analysis poses a problem when it deals with a mistaken belief and a situation where the mismatch between the semantic and the pragmatic aspect (more precisely, the speaker’s pragmatic inference) takes place. As a more appropriate semantic analysis of DAS, this paper proposes that the presuppositional semantic approach and the Kratzer-style modal semantics incorporate into the semantics of DAS since it is the characteristic of DAS that not only does DAS involve presupposition, but attitude holder's background knowledge can also provide us with a clue as to whether or not the content of the embedded proposition holds at the utterance time. This may assist in understanding the semantics of DAS.

This paper investigates a unified semantic treatment of the variation in the interpretation arising from would-conditional constructions within Kratzer’s (1991) framework of modality. According to Kratzer’s framework, the modal base and the ordering source are two important parameters that are involved in disambiguating modalized expressions. However, this paper argues that the ordering sources, rather than the modal base, play a crucial role in disambiguating the different interpretations of would-conditionals. Establishing different ordering sources for the different interpretations can resolve the ambiguity of wouldconditionals. In conjunction with this, this paper proposes a unified semantic treatment of would-conditionals with a change of the ordering sources. On the basis of this, this paper shows that the variation in the interpretation can be analyzed in a uniform way by making would-conditionals quantify over different possible worlds, depending on which interpretation is preferable. We can account for how they quantify over different worlds by positing the different ordering sources, but not the modal base.

This paper argues that neither the classical semantic treatment of the propositional attitudes (Hinttikka 1969) nor the previous semantic analyses of the hearsay or reprotative evidentials fit into the semantics of the English hearsay evidentials. This is mainly because not only is the notion of the compatibility that is employed in the semantics of propositional attitudes inappropriate for that of hearsay evidentiality, but they can be interpreted to convey an assertion, in which the speaker commits to the truth of the embedded proposition, and a proffering, in which the speaker does not. In order to account for the different interpretations, this paper develops an analysis of the English hearsay evidential, which is along the lines of that proposed by Krazter (1991), by positing different ordering sources for each of the interpretations. The introduction of the different ordering sources into the semantics of the hearsay evidentials plays the role of indicating whether or not the speaker commits to the truth of the proposition expressed by the embedded clause.

It is well‐known in the literature of Korean linguistics that the difficulty with the semantic treatment of –ess lies in the fact that it can be used to refer to a past eventuality or a perfect eventuality, depending on the context of use. For this reason, after pointing out that it is of no use to posit that –ess is a past tense marker, a perfect marker, or both, this paper argues that –ess itself is neither a past tense marker nor a perfect marker, which completely departs from the previous treatments of –ess . To put it differently, -ess is indeterminate between a past tense marker and a perfect marker across the sentences in which it occurs. The context of use serves to resolve its indeterminacy by presenting the most salient semantic interpretation that may arise from –ess .